Transcript

This is a rush transcript. If you notice any errors please report them using the “Help improve this post” link at the bottom of this post.

Ron Paul: Everybody wants to be a powerful executive and run things. I, as a President, wouldn’t want to run the world, I don’t want to police individual activities and lifestyle, and I don’t want to run the economy. So that’s an entirely different philosophy, but it’s very, very much in our tradition, and in the tradition of our constitution.

Sean Hannity: Welcome back to Sioux City, Iowa. Tonight, the GOP presidential hopefuls took to the stage and they were outlining their visions for getting America back on track. And joining me now is the man you just heard from, that’s Texas Congressman Ron Paul. How are you, it’s good to see you.

Ron Paul: Good, good to see you.

Sean Hannity: Thanks for being with us. I noticed you never gave a full answer to – I think it was Megan Kelly’s question – will you promise, if you don’t win this nomination and if you’re doing very well here in Iowa, that you will support the Republican nominee and not run third party?

Ron Paul: Well, I’ll give the same answer I’ve given about 39 times now, that I have no intention of doing that, I plan to do my very best and see what happens in the next two months. So I’m not making pledges.

Sean Hannity: I don’t want to push you too hard, but when you say “no intention” it leaves the door open.

Ron Paul: Yea.

Ron Paul: So you’re leaving the door open?

Ron Paul: I don’t like absolutes, I don’t like to say, “I absolutely will never do such-and-such”, so I’m just avoiding the absolutes.

Sean Hannity: But you absolutely support the U.S. constitution?

Ron Paul: Yea, that’s true. That’s a little bit different than pledging to politicians.

Sean Hannity: But the thing is, you know that if you ran third party, and I think what people are looking for an answer, you would probably siphon off some of the anti-Obama vote. I don’t think there’s any debt about it.

Ron Paul: But wouldn’t it be fair to ask the moderate Republicans that are competing the same question? John Anderson dropped out and ran and that’s a significant event.

Sean Hannity: But “no intention” means the door is open, so you’re saying tonight that the door is open a little?

Ron Paul: Well, I cannot conceive of it.

Sean Hannity: You can’t conceive of any …

Ron Paul: I cannot conceive it, I have absolutely no plans or thoughts of doing it.

Sean Hannity: Alright, a lot came up tonight and it got very heated on the issue of national security and Iran. Let me ask you this question: with Iran killing Americans in Iraq (you argue we shouldn’t have been there in the first place) but they’re also fighting proxy wars through Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. They were planning an assassination of a Saudi Ambassador on our soil, they clearly have said they want to wipe Israel off the map. Why do you think it wouldn’t be dangerous if they got that nuclear weapon?

Ron Paul: Well, I don’t want them to get the nuclear weapon and it would increase the danger, but I don’t think we should deal with that. But as far as thinking that that should be the whole issues, I think you’re losing the point, because there are a lot of nuclear weapons around the world. And, matter of fact, those quotes about wiping Israel off the map, just as a favor to me, look it up and check the real interpretation. They talk about getting rid of the regime, those people in Jerusalem.

Sean Hannity: I have gone back on numerous occasions, he has said “eliminate the state of Israel, wipe them off the face of the earth”.

Ron Paul: It literally says getting rid of the regime and remove it from the pages of time, it is a lot different than Israel being wiped off the earth.

Sean Hannity: He’s also a holocaust denier.

Ron Paul: Okay. I think they’re acting in self-defense. [Ayud Barack] said that they’re acting logically and they’re acting in their self interest, and if he was an Iranian, he would probably think the same way. So they have a lot to contend with. And [Barack] said they were surrounded by nuclear missiles, why wouldn’t they have a natural … But there is gross distortion that they’re on a verge of a nuclear weapon, there is no evidence that they’re on a verge of a nuclear weapon, and we shouldn’t be ready to start another war.

Sean Hannity: You talk about the declaration of war, I’ve read the constitution, it doesn’t say you have to use any exact words. And George Bush got the authorization for the use of force. If you’re going to use force, that seems, to me, to meet that definition.

Ron Paul: Yea, but it was explicit to go after those responsible for 9/11, and I voted for it, I voted for that.

Sean Hannity: Did I hear you say tonight, and I wrote it down and I wasn’t sure of the context because, I will admit, my attention was diverted, that we killed millions of Iraqis?

Ron Paul: When Albright was asked the subject that when we were bombing during the 1990s, they said that 500,000 Iraqi children died because of our bombing and sanctions and blowing up their water plants and all. And she says, “Well, that’s the price to pay, we have to”. So for 10 years we were bombing them, and don’t you think we would be annoyed if somebody bombed us for 10 years. So in comparison, they can say that we have killed a lot of people. We drop drones on Pakistan, what if they did that to us, wouldn’t we be annoyed? And that’s not self-defense.

Sean Hannity: You know, I’m a believer that no country has shed more blood in defense of freedom for Muslims around the world than the United States, nor has there ever been a country that has accumulated more power and abused it less than us. This came up in 2008 when you ran, and I’ve asked every question to Newt Gingrich involving his background, his controversies, everything. Same with Mitt Romney. And I really admire your fierce supporters, but when I brought up the issue of your newsletters from the early 1990s, and some really outrageous things that have been written in there. And you had gone on record saying you had no idea what was in them. That kind of surprised me. Why do you not take responsibility for the things that were in your individual newsletters?

Ron Paul: In 2002 [2001], the Texas Monthly reviewed that and they wrote a long, long article, and that’s a real liberal newspaper. So you read that and you’ll that I did not write it and I do not support those views and they’re painted as something that maybe I’m racist or something.

Sean Hannity: But there were some pretty racial things in it.

Ron Paul: I’m the greatest defender of civil liberties, especially when it comes to the inequities in our judicial system. With blacks, the imprisonments for the drug wars, the number of blacks to get the death penalty.

Sean Hannity: I got to know, do you know who did write it, and do you repudiate what was in your newsletter?

Ron Paul: No, I do not, and I don’t believe any of that stuff that they’ve quoted. How about tomorrow? Remember, December 16th, the anniversary of the Tea Party, very important day. That was when the Tea Party Movement was started 4 years ago. That’s the modern Tea Party Movement.

Sean Hannity: And for all your supporters, I asked every other candidate questions of controversy as well. It was good to see you, Mr. Paul.

Ron Paul: Thank you.

Sean Hannity: Hang on for one second. And we still have lots more to come tonight as we are live in the spin room. We are in Sioux City, Iowa.

Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton released the following statement concerning the CBS / National Journal Republican debate:

Ron Paul consistently polls among the top three in the key early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. He is polling in double digits in most respected polls.

Congressman Paul is ranked among the top three in fundraising results.

Congressman Paul serves on the House Foreign Relations Committee.

Congressman Paul is a veteran.

And, Congressman Paul has contrasting views on foreign policy that many Americans find worthy of inquiry and discussion.

CBS’s treatment of Congressman Paul is disgraceful, especially given that tonight’s debate centered on foreign policy and national security.

Congressman Paul was only allocated 90 seconds of speaking in one televised hour. If we are to have an authentic national conversation on issues such as security and defense, we can and must do better to ensure that all voices are heard.

CBS News, in their arrogance, may think they can choose the next president. Fortunately, the people of Iowa, New Hampshire, and across America get to vote and not the media elites.

“”Backstage” before the CNN / Tea party debate.” — Ron Paul

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. If you notice any errors please report them using the “Help improve this post” link at the bottom of this post.

Host: Congressman Paul joins us on the phone. And it’s nice to have you back on “Talk of the Nation”.

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

Host: And you’ve defined your campaign as being the candidate who wants to most limit the role of the federal government. You represent a coastal congressional district in Texas, yet you’ve consistently argued that we should slash FEMA, the federal agency responsible for responding to disasters in the aftermath of a hurricane; you’ve repeated that.

Ron Paul: Yes, I just think it’s a serious problem, and that’s why I don’t think we should let it be dealt with by bureaucrats in Washington because they don’t have a very good record. A lot of people would like to paint myself with a brush that says, “If you don’t want the federal government to do it, then you don’t want to solve the problem”, but sometimes when the federal government gets involved, they don’t do a very good job and that is my point. Matter of fact, the federal government invites more problems by offering what they call insurance against flooding and wind. But the truth is it’s no longer insurance if the government says they’re always going to bail you out. So people who enjoy the benefits of living on the beach and close to the water, really are guaranteed that their houses will be rebuilt. And they say, “Well, we can’t get insurance otherwise”. Well, they can’t get it because it’s real expensive because it’s very dangerous. So it’s a matter of risk and I think that’s an objection that I had. Besides, I’ve had more complaints about FEMA than any other agencies the whole time I’ve been in Congress, and I have a coastal district and there are too many stories about what FEMA did down with Katrina. So there are so many arguments that that’s not the most efficient way to deal with a problem like natural disasters.

Host: Well, if FEMA does not provide disaster relief, who should?

Ron Paul: Well, who’s FEMA? FEMA is the tax payer and it’s dead, they’re 20 billion dollars in debt already. I think the states should do it. You know, when Katrina was such a disaster, there were a lot of complaints that the guard units for the states that were involved, many of their guard unit people were overseas worrying about war disasters. Matter of fact, I think it would better if they were home worrying about our kind of problems here at home. But I’d also bring some of the money home. See, I’m not opposed, under the conditions, because I was opposed to the concept even when it was imposed on us by an executive order; not by the Congress, by executive order. But I’ve always said that once we get involved in a program, you just don’t walk away from it if you can come up with another way of dealing with it. But we don’t have any money, we have to borrow the money, we’re just kidding ourselves. And I consider the fiscal mess we’re in to be very, very serious. So what I have said is, why don’t we cut 10 billion dollars a month out of the war going on going on over in Afghanistan, which is a total disaster, put half of that towards the deficit and put half of it back into our infrastructure or for the needs of the people we’ve taught to be dependent and actually try to work our way out of this. So I think that approach is a very responsible way of trying to deal with both the crisis as well as our financial mess that we’re in.

Host: And I don’t know if you’re heard the news today, but President Obama has asked to address a joint meeting of Congress on the evening of September 7, which coincidently, according to the White House, happens to be the date of the next GOP presidential debate. Which event do you plan to attend?

Ron Paul: I haven’t thought much about it. I guess I heard about that just a few minutes ago, but I just wonder what motivations, because in the Republican primary there were people who always tried to upstage the other members. We had Perry doing something when we had the straw vote, and then we had Palin doing things in order to get attention. So I don’t know, I just wondered what the motivation of all this is. I mean, it’s very obvious that he’s picking a time when a debate is going on. Why didn’t he do it on Tuesday? So I have no idea what the answer seems a little bit unusual to do something like this.

Host: Ken?

Ken: Congressman, the headline about a month or so ago was Michele Bachmann wins the Iowa Straw Poll with very little mention that Ron Paul finished closely behind her. And other headline was that Tm Pawlenty drops out of the race. Then the more recent headline was that Rick Perry is taking over Mitt Romney’s role as frontrunner. As a member of Congress from Texas, you’ve obviously had some dealings with Rick Perry and, of course, we’ll see Perry in the debate next week. But what’s your sense, what’s your relationship with Rick Perry and how do you see him as a presidential candidate?

Ron Paul: Well, I think he’s a formidable candidate. I mean, he’s a Governor of a big state. I don’t agree with his politics. The Tea Party people had a candidate running against him for Governor last go around and she had no money and got 20%. But I haven’t met the Governor and I don’t know him personally and we haven’t had any personal dealings, so I can’t comment on that. But I know that so many of his political positions are not the same as mine.

Ken: Could you point out one or two?

Ron Paul: Well, Politically speaking he was the chairman here in Texas for Al Gore’s campaign in 1988 and he was compelling 12 year old or 10 year old girls all to get inoculations for HPV and he did that by executive order, I don’t believe in executive orders. That was overwritten by the legislature, and there are quite a few other things in his past that philosophically I wouldn’t agree with. His comments on foreign policy haven’t been exactly what I would like.

Host: Alright, let’s get some callers in on the conversation. We’re speaking, of course, with the presidential candidate, Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas at 800-9898-255 and email at talk@npr.org. Josh is on the line from Milwaukee.

Josh: Hey, congressman and Neil. Just a quick question: Do you feel at all vindicated in the wake of your last campaign that maybe you saw the debt crisis coming from a mile away and maybe you deserved a little more platform for speaking in the last election. And I’ll take my answer off the air?

Host: Thanks, Josh.

Ron Paul: I get that question asked a lot, and I never put it in personal terms because I think the views that I’ve expressed are vindicated, I think Austrian economics has been vindicated; something that I have followed since the 1960s. Because it was the Austrian economist that predicted that the Bretton-Woods Agreement, the monetary system, the gold standard, would break down, which it did in August of 1971. So yes, if you understand Austrian economics, you can anticipate bubbles, you can’t tell when the crisis actually will hit because there are other things that determine the precise timing. But we do know that if you run up debt and print money, that the dollar will lose value and it will wipe out the middle class eventually and that is what I fear we’re facing, that’s why I’m so determined to try to pay for the things that we do; whether it’s war or whatever. Of course, I don’t want the wars to go on because I think they’re all so unnecessary. So yes, I think the philosophy of liberty and the constitution hopefully has been vindicated to some degree because it was the predictions by those of us who believed in it that some of these problems would come and they certainly are here and they’re going to get a lot worse. I mean, next year the financial problems are going to be much worse because we’re doing nothing in Washington, nobody will consider cutting the spending, the 10 billion dollars a month, and the war is accelerating in Afghanistan. This is one place where the American people, the majority, want us to come home, they’re tired of it all. But both party leaders are all for this. No matter what they say on their campaigns, they get in office and they pursue this global warmongering stuff that I think is bankrupting our country.

Host: Ken?

Ken: Congressman, one of the most memorable moments of the 2008 campaign I think was your clash at the debate with Rudy Giuliani over maybe the cause of 9/11. As we approach the 10 year anniversary of 9/11, what does it mean to you and how do you think that the American people are seeing it? What vantage point do you see the American people viewing 9/11 from 10 years later?

Ron Paul: Well, I’m saddened by it all because we haven’t changed anything and we made things much worse. For instance, suicide terrorism is one of the greatest threat we have, people who want to commit these kinds of acts; it’s so difficult to defend ourselves against. But you know before we invaded Iraq for the wrong reasons – there was no Al-Qaida there and they had nothing to do with 9/11 – but before invaded Iraq, the Iraqis had never committed any acts of suicide terrorism. By 2007, they were committing over 300 acts of terrorism against Americans or allies of America. So suicide terrorism, our greatest threat, is directly related to our presence in Arab countries, and propping up puppet governments in that region. And there’s been total denial of this, they won’t pay any attention, so we’re not safer, we’re more broke than ever, and the evidence is out there to explain exactly the direct correlation between our presence over there and the dangers we face.

Host: An email from Christopher in Fort Bragg, North Carolina: “I understand and agree with most of your positions on issues currently concerning the people of the United States. An issue I have not heard you talk about much and which I also didn’t see on your website is the environment. I believe certain environmental issues require governmental oversight; things like water sources and federally protect land can be misused and abused if each state is left to fend for itself and regulate itself. What’s your stand on the environment, how do you recommend we protect things like water tables and shared water sources, such as the great lake?”

Ron Paul: Well, I think it’s an important question because I have written somewhat about this, I don’t probably talk about it as much as I should. But my contention is that during the industrial revolution, big government and big corporations became pretty good buddies and they quite freely polluted our air and our water. I was raised in the city of Pittsburg, our rivers were sewers and our skies were not much better. They were essentially cleaned up with local city ordinances a long time before the EPA. But this could be managed in a free market society if you have strict respect for private property. Because if you and I have property next to each other, neither of us have a right to pollute your air or your waters. So property rights are very, very important. But even when it comes to water, in Texas they developed pretty clearly the property rights of oil. So people can’t drill oil next to your farm and suck out all the oil under your land because it’s your property. And the laws are written pretty good for that. So property rights can do this. The basic principle that you cannot pollute your neighbor’s property is a pretty good one, but I think there are times when you do need the government to enforce those laws, and the more local, the better. But there will be times when the federal government has to be involved because our air goes across state boundaries, water goes from one state to another. So under those circumstances, I think that we should have the federal government involved.

Host: Presidential candidate, Ron Paul. Political Junky Ken Rudin is with us, you’re listening to “Talk of the Nation” from NPR News. Let’s go next to John, John is with us from Alexandria, Virginia.

John: Hi, congressman. I’m calling because I’m an entrepreneur, I run my own business and I love doing that. But one of the concerns that I have is that it seems like a lot of the discussion in Washington focuses on what’s best for big businesses and there’s talk about people who make lots of money as job creators. But a lot of the proposals that are out there to do anything for changing the tax code to altering Social Security so that you can invest in big businesses, don’t necessarily affect me. So I wanted to know what would you think you could do and what’s the federal government should do for people like me? And would you be willing to take that to your competitors during the debates and challenge them to make changes to the tax code and to entitlements that don’t just benefit the biggest out there, but also benefit those who are seeking to innovate on their own?

Ron Paul: I think you’re right about that, I think the system in DC is very much controlled by big banks and big corporations; the military-industrial complex, giant farms that get their subsidies. So they have lobbyist and they get their tax codes and the regulatory system benefiting them. Very often, corporations come to Washington for regulations, because they know if you’re a small businessman, you don’t have the same ability to get around the system and have your tax attorneys and different attorneys. But in talking about subsidies, though, I don’t want any subsidies, so I don’t want to give them to the big guys to take an advantage of the smaller people. And I want the regulations to be the same way, we should not allow the big companies to dictate the regulations. For instances, both, the Democrats and the Republicans, when they have medical care reforms, they protect drug companies and the insurance companies, and that shouldn’t be so. Everybody should be protected equally, nobody should get any special privileges, everybody should obey the rules of contracts and private property rights.

Host: John, thanks very much for the call.

John: Thank you.

Host: And we just have a minute or so left with you, Congressman, but I wanted to ask: your supporters claim that we in the media don’t take you seriously enough, you’re dismissed as a second-tier candidate. What do you have to do to be taken seriously as a first-tier candidate, where you going to get and win something?

Ron Paul: Well, there’ll be plenty of changes pretty soon. We do pretty darn well in all the straw votes which proves that we have support, we can raise money, we can organize and people are energized. But the numbers still have to come out in elections which probably will be the real test will be in January. But from our inside, the campaign organization, we do know that it’s easy to raise money, the volunteers are more than ever, the country has sifted, the attitudes have changed, the majority of American people don’t like the war and they’re looking at the monetary system.

Host: Well, Congressman Paul, good luck to you in your campaign and thanks very much for being with us again on Talk of The Nation.

Ron Paul: Thank you.

Members of a Congressional panel questioned Thursday why the U.S. Mint has created a shortage of high-quality bullion coins, causing a speculative run-up in value.

The U.S. House of Representatives’ Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee was told that the country’s bullion coins are topnotch and have a potential high growth of profitability for the U.S. Mint and for the country. But testimony from the industry indicated there aren’t enough of them.

“The problem is there is high demand, but a shortage of the coins,” summed up Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX, the chairman of the subcommittee. More

Date: 02/08/2011

Transcript

Larry Kudlow: At the top of this half hour, we have an exclusive interview with the House Monetary Chairman, Ron Paul, he’s a Republican from Texas, on the eve of his first sub-committee hearing. Can he put an end to the economic damage from Ben Bernanke’s inflationary policies? Now, today, Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker, said the economy is growing at 4%, and therefore, Mr. Lacker says, it’s time to review and re-evaluate QE2. And he was joined by Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher, who had a similar point of view. Meanwhile, House Budget Chair Paul Ryan blasted Bernanke today, saying the Fed’s missing inflation and ought to raise interest rates. Here’s what he said on CNBC this morning.

Ron Paul: Thanks a lot.

http://www.forlibertymovie.com

As the 2007-08 presidential campaign cycle offered up the usual slate of Washington insiders, Ron Paul, an obscure Congressman from Texas brought an alternative voice that challenged the political establishment.

Advocating a philosophy of sound money, a non-interventionist foreign policy, strict Constitutionalism, and individual liberty, Dr. Paul inspired a unique grassroots movement unmatched in American history – the repercussions of which continue to reverberate today and into the future of the American psyche.

For Liberty: How the Ron Paul Revolution Watered the Withered Tree of Liberty follows this historic campaign from the perspective of grassroots activists, and showcases the unique, often bizarre, yet groundbreaking projects they undertook as they brushed aside traditional campaign methodology.

Credits

Produced and Directed by
Chris Rye & Corey Kealiher

Editor
Chris Rye

Assistant Editor
Corey Kealiher

Director of Photography
Chris Rye

Special Editorial Assistant
Bryan Thome

Key Grip/Awesome Dude
Michael Maresco

Additional Photography
Bret Hatch
Bryan Thome
Ernest Hancock
Bill Dumas
Barclay Bean
Bernard Carman
Tom Westbrook
Mike Mart
Bob Dwyer
Julian Smith
Boston Liberty Project
Kenneth & Julie van Schooten
Byron Jackson
Gary Franchi
Tory Watson
Corey Kealiher
Shane O’Hara
John Vidurek
Michael Matthews
Robert Abraham
Istvan Lettang, Eclipptv.com
Andrew Neef
Cynthia Kennedy
Mandy Nichols
Ron Paul Air Corps
Granny Warriors
John Seibold

Ron Paul explained why he voted in favor of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell”:

Ron Paul: “I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual. To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense.” (Source)

Of the 13,500 members of the military who have been discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell” more than 1,000 filled critical occupations, such as engineers and interpreters.

Date: 05/21/2010
Channel: Fox Business
Host: Stuart Varney

Transcript

Stuart Varney: Congressman, the price of gold is down a bit this morning. How do you account for that?

Ron Paul: Well, I think it’s like other markets too. Sometimes they go up and sometimes they go down. But I look at gold not on a weekly basis but more on long term and it’s a good measurement of value and the value of currencies.

I think our current mess we’re in now started in the year 2000, when the NASDAQ burst. At that time gold was at $262, so I would say that gold did pretty good in the last decade, and I think we’re still on track for the only tool that the Fed has and the government has: spending debt and printing money. In the long term, that’s very good for gold as a protector against lost value in currency. It’s going to continue, but it doesn’t mean gold might not drop a bit more.

Stuart Varney: Congressman, you have appeared several times on this program and I’ve always asked you the same question. You see real, real economic distress, but you said it’s coming two or three years down the road. Have you speeded up your time frame a bit, bearing in mind what’s been happening over the past week?

Ron Paul: I worry about that, and I think we have months to prepare and be ready and condition people and prepare them for what we ought to change the system to. I think it’ll limp along. As long as they are buying Treasury bills and buying dollars, that’s the last bastion. And there’s no justification for it. Who wants to buy a Treasury bill for 10 years and take it out in 10 years and think they’re going to have value in that. I don’t think anybody believes that. It’s just that there’s just so many dollars that they’re parking, they’re still resorting to us to help bail out Europe and Greece and the IMF. It’s pretty amazing how resilient this can be.

But if I were betting, I’m not saying, well, “I don’t think it’s going to happen for 3 years, so this is a good time to buy stock” – is the last thing I would think. So I’m sort of preparing my mind that we could have this bigger crisis.

I think we have this ongoing crisis. I never believed we were going to bull market. I don’t think we’re going to bear market correction and that’s what it looks like it is.

I hope your question is sort of wrong, that we don’t have it in 3 months. I hope we have 3 more years to prepare the people for what we have to do when we have a serious crisis.

Stuart Varney: Well, I hope you’ll join us again and we’ll watch for this, what exactly is going on. Always a pleasure, Congressman Ron Paul. Thanks for joining us.