T Nation

Ron Paul On The Record


The Texas Congressman’s best quotes on martial law, foreign policy, the economy and more

Compare these home truths to the cacophony of rehearsed establishment pablum spewed forth by Giuliani, McCain, Romney or any other of the shill candidates.

RON PAUL ON THE POLICE STATE & MARTIAL LAW

“If we don’t change our ways we will go the way of Rome and I see that as rather sad…the worst things happen when you get the so-called Republican conservatives in charge from Nixon on down, big government flourishes under Republicans.”

“I think they’re concerned about the remnant, the remnant of those individuals who don’t buy into stuff and think that they should take care of themselves on their own, that they should have their own guns and their own provisions and they don’t want to depend on the government at all and I think that is a threat to those who want to hold power. They don’t want any resistance to their authoritarian rule.”

“They’re putting their back up against the wall and saying, if need be we’re going to have martial law.”

“We’ve heard all these statements by the President, by the administration, why they need more militarism at the federal government to keep people in check so nobody knows how this will turn out but I do know that the only thing we can do about it is try to alert the American people to what’s going on so they can be prepared.”

“It’s getting close to it, it’s called usurpation of power and it’s done in many ways with Congress just going along because they’re sound asleep and this certainly is an attack on our Constitution and on our freedoms.”

“We might have to hope that our Supreme Court helps us out a little. The Court has been better than the executive branch and a heck of a lot better than the Congress, because we’ve given the President everything he’s asked for and the President has been begging for all this authority, so immediately we have to hope that the courts will save us on some of these things. But once again ultimately its only when the people wake up and say they don’t like this… sometimes the people wake up to late. Right now we don’t have concentration camps, but like you have pointed out, the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus. I have heard the argument that there is nothing else left in the Bill of Rights. If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun? That is now part of the books, part of the law.”

“You know there’s nothing that guarantees that they will allow you to air your radio show forever. They have already trampled on our rights, they talking about putting people in prison today without Habeas Corpus… If we don’t preserve our fundamental freedoms we can’t fight back. I’m convinced of one thing, we could all be very very poor tomorrow and have to start from scratch but if we have our freedoms and we have our sound currency and we have the government off our backs, this country would rebound so quickly.”

“I think they are always prepared and everyday they have more powers than before because under these emergency powers acts, the President now has more authority than ever. And the contest that is really going on in this Presidential election is are there enough of us that care about our freedoms versus those who are willing to succumb to the temptations of dictatorship. Just think of the attitude, what it was like right after 9/11 when they passed the Patriot Act, I said ‘you know it’s not even available, you can’t even read it and we’re getting ready to vote’ they said ‘it doesn’t matter, the people want us to do something, this looks like we’re doing something, it sounds good, there’s no way I’m even gonna question this’, so they voted for it. They got their signals from the people. it is true that there are a lot of people who wanted something done, the big question is are there more of them or more of us?”

“Congress has generously ignored the Constitution while the President flaunts it, the courts have ignored it and they get in the business of legislating so there’s no respect for the rule of law.”

RON PAUL ON BIRD FLU

“To me it’s so strange that the President can make these proposals and it’s even plausible. When he talks about martial law dealing with some epidemic that might come later on and having forced quarantines, doing away with Posse Comitatus in order to deal with natural disasters, and hardly anybody says anything. People must be scared to death.”

“I believe it is the President hyping this and Rumsfeld, but it has to be in combination with the people being fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse. My first reaction going from my political and medical background is that it’s way overly hyped and to think that they have gone this far with it, without a single case in the whole country and they’re willing to change the law and turn it into a military state? That is unbelievable! They’re determined to have martial law.”

RON PAUL ON THE NEO-CONS

“I think the arrogance of power that they have where they themselves are like Communists…in the sense that they decide what is right. The Communist Party said that they decided what was right or wrong, it wasn’t a higher source.”

RON PAUL ON THE UN, GLOBAL GOVERNMENT & THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION

“Who do we have at the UN, Bolton, the arch Neo-Con warmonger and actually what they’ve done is taken the Neo-Con position on intervening on the internal affairs of other nations and regime change and they’ve institutionalized that in the United Nations, now the UN is in the business of regime change.”

“I think the goal is one world government - we have not only the U.N. - we have the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, then we have all the subsidiaries like NAFTA and hemispheric governments, highways coming in.”

“We have behind the scenes a plan for a North American Union, that’s the part that the American people are starting to wake up to, although we have a long way to go to wake up Washington. It’s amazing to me how many people outside of Washington are very much aware of the plans with this North American Union, at the same time they are in total denial in Washington, except for the few behind the scenes who are laying the plans and providing the finances.”

RON PAUL ON THE DEMOCRAT COWARDS

“Not a whole lot will change because the leadership on the Democratic side, even if they had their way, don’t have a different foreign policy. They have been supportive of an interventionist foreign policy in the middle east, and they are not about to back away from that… They are willing to criticize the policy but only as a means to get power.”

RON PAUL ON THE PLUNGING DOLLAR & THE ECONOMY

“They all believe in the federal reserve, they are not going to get rid of the IRS and the income tax. I think the dollar is going to keep sliding, which means prices are going to rise, when currencies self destruct, the end goes quickly. There are no signs that there is anything being done in Washington to correct the problem. Spending is going to continue and probably going to get worse, the deficits are going to stay high if foreign policy is not going to change.”

“That’s also part of the foreign policy to be in position to hold onto natural resources, that’s one of the major reasons why we’re in the middle east, so yes if there is a financial crisis, they’re going to have the guns, and they have control of the natural resources… It’s not a good scenario, because what usually happens when you wipe out a currency is that you wipe out the middle class, and we already see this happening. The standard of living is going down.”

“They get a temporarily good deal but what it does is encourage us not to be productive, it encourages us not to have manufacturing any longer, we can let others do it cheaper, cheap labour, and then we buy it with cheap money. That is going to come to an end. That means later on there are going to be a lot of changes here. Domestically the interest rates are going to rise, the inflation rate, the price of all goods and services, that will rise, and the economy will weaken, so we have some very serious problems ahead.”

“Economically the consequences will be that there’s going to be a wholesale rejection of the dollar, because the world has trusted the dollar, especially since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods in 1971, when the linkage of the dollar to gold was broken, they still trusted the dollar as if it were gold, and therefore we can print the money and we can spend the money and foreign countries take our money, then loan it back to us, so they’re getting a bum rap.”

RON PAUL ON FOREIGN POLICY

“As a Commander in chief you could certainly handle the troops around the world. I would start talking to all our allies and tell them what the plans were and start coming home. We are now spending close to a trillion dollars maintaining our foreign policy. It’s a lot bigger than most people realize if you add up the Dod, the supplementals, the interest on the money we spend and taking care of our veterans.”

“We have turned our own country into isolationists, diplomatically we don’t talk to anybody, we have more enemies than we’ve ever had before and fewer allies, and at the same time our ability to defend this country is being diminished on a daily basis. We worry about borders, all around he world, we worry about borders in Korea, about borders around Iraq, and what do we do with our own borders? Here we don’t do anything.”

Ron Paul is the only man on both sides who is not owned by Special Interests this why he can speak the truth. I saw something very disturbing on CSPAN yesterday, A senator was discussing how huge tech companies like Microsoft are pouring billions of dollars in Eduaction, not education for American kids f*&k no, they are educating Chinese kids.

Meanwhile our kids have 20 year old books and buildings that are falling down. If a man like Ron Paul is not even thought of as President , then we deserve to live in the 3rd world nation we are becoming. Let’s wake up

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

Meanwhile our kids have 20 year old books and buildings that are falling down. …[/quote]

Not my kids school or any other school in my area.

I was just in my kids school last evening and it struck me how much money we dump into these places for gadgets and crap that is completely unnecessary.

Many city schools have major problems but it is often not a lack of funding but rather a host of other issues that prevent the kids from learning.

Many of these quotes are full of shit. To pretend we do nothing on our borders is silly. We do plenty on our borders and we are going to spend plenty more and it still will not prevent people from sneaking across.

People have been sneaking across borders as long as borders existed. They will continue to do it as long as there is reason for them to do so.

I have to say I am seriously disappointed with this guy.

He comes across as a radio host that only criticizes and does not offer any realistic solutions.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

I know he’s not popular with a lot of “mainstream” conservatives, but I like Ron Paul a lot. I think that he is one of the few candidates who really believes that the citizens should be free from as much government intervention as possible.

His views on foriegn policy seem a bit unrealistic at this point, but I think “non-interventionist” is a reasonable long-term goal. It is not the “isolationism” that he has been labelled with by some of the other Republicans.

I’m going to keep resarching, but right now, I’m leaning toward voting for Paul at every opportunity.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

So you’re the one![/quote]

Someone’s gotta do it.

Oh, and nice job trying to discourage me from voting for the person I think is best suited for the job, by the way - keep up the good work!

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
I know he’s not popular with a lot of “mainstream” conservatives, but I like Ron Paul a lot. I think that he is one of the few candidates who really believes that the citizens should be free from as much government intervention as possible.

His views on foriegn policy seem a bit unrealistic at this point, but I think “non-interventionist” is a reasonable long-term goal. It is not the “isolationism” that he has been labelled with by some of the other Republicans.

I’m going to keep resarching, but right now, I’m leaning toward voting for Paul at every opportunity.[/quote]

Agree with this. I am far from a doctrinaire libertarian, but Paul strikes me as smarter than most of the people running, and more honest than all of them.

And I agree with you about the difference between isolationism and non-intervention. The way he is getting slandered by the usual media assholes (Hannity, etc.) is disgusting.

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
I know he’s not popular with a lot of “mainstream” conservatives, but I like Ron Paul a lot. I think that he is one of the few candidates who really believes that the citizens should be free from as much government intervention as possible.

His views on foriegn policy seem a bit unrealistic at this point, but I think “non-interventionist” is a reasonable long-term goal. It is not the “isolationism” that he has been labelled with by some of the other Republicans.

I’m going to keep resarching, but right now, I’m leaning toward voting for Paul at every opportunity.[/quote]

I don’t understand your distinction between isolationism and non-intervention.

Either we are actively involved in the world or we are not.

The 1800’s are over and events on the other side of the world have huge impact.

You cannot just wish things go your way.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Cunnivore wrote:
I know he’s not popular with a lot of “mainstream” conservatives, but I like Ron Paul a lot. I think that he is one of the few candidates who really believes that the citizens should be free from as much government intervention as possible.

His views on foriegn policy seem a bit unrealistic at this point, but I think “non-interventionist” is a reasonable long-term goal. It is not the “isolationism” that he has been labelled with by some of the other Republicans.

I’m going to keep resarching, but right now, I’m leaning toward voting for Paul at every opportunity.

I don’t understand your distinction between isolationism and non-intervention.

Either we are actively involved in the world or we are not.

The 1800’s are over and events on the other side of the world have huge impact.

You cannot just wish things go your way. [/quote]

It’s not black and white. I’m not necessarily a fan of non-interventionism, but it is not isolationism. Paul is all about free trade, whereas most isolationists are protectionists. That is a huge issue, and is only going to get bigger as globalization both helps and hurts the U.S. in big ways (see Jim Webb).

Non-interventionism is about not projecting military force all over the globe unless it’s strictly necessary for self-defense. Same would go for CIA and other lesser forms of meddling I would imagine.

Ron Paul gave Rudy a reading list, so Rudy could educate himself on foriegn affairs and how they played into the rise of terrorism. That was a pretty good burn.

David Cross has a good joke about this, saying that Bin Laden didn’t attack us for our freedom, if he was trying to attack freedom then the Netherlands would be wiped off the map by now. He attacked America because of our many military bases in the middle east and because of our propping up Israel at the expense of Palestine.

And then he says How do I know that’s why Bin Laden attacked us?

BECAUSE HE FUCKING SAID SO!!!

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Ron Paul gave Rudy a reading list, so Rudy could educate himself on foriegn affairs and how they played into the rise of terrorism. That was a pretty good burn.

David Cross has a good joke about this, saying that Bin Laden didn’t attack us for our freedom, if he was trying to attack freedom then the Netherlands would be wiped off the map by now. He attacked America because of our many military bases in the middle east and because of our propping up Israel at the expense of Palestine.

And then he says How do I know that’s why Bin Laden attacked us?

BECAUSE HE FUCKING SAID SO!!![/quote]

Really? So, what does that have to do with backing Islamic extremist groups in the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Somalia, Bangladesh, Mali, Chad, Niger, Sudan, etc., etc., What does that have to do with regaining Spain for the Islamic empire? Yes, that’s an openly stated Al Qaeda goal.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Ron Paul gave Rudy a reading list, so Rudy could educate himself on foriegn affairs and how they played into the rise of terrorism. That was a pretty good burn.

David Cross has a good joke about this, saying that Bin Laden didn’t attack us for our freedom, if he was trying to attack freedom then the Netherlands would be wiped off the map by now. He attacked America because of our many military bases in the middle east and because of our propping up Israel at the expense of Palestine.

And then he says How do I know that’s why Bin Laden attacked us?

BECAUSE HE FUCKING SAID SO!!!

Really? So, what does that have to do with backing Islamic extremist groups in the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Somalia, Bangladesh, Mali, Chad, Niger, Sudan, etc., etc., What does that have to do with regaining Spain for the Islamic empire? Yes, that’s an openly stated Al Qaeda goal.
[/quote]

He attacked us because the US is preventing him from imposing his tyrannical brand of Islamic rule in Saudi Arabia and around the world.

Now that we know why he did it should we let him have his way or should we oppose him?

“Non-intervention” says we should let him have his way.

“Non-intervention” would have sat out WWII by not giving Japan reason to attack us.

I am sure THAT would have made the world a better place.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
He attacked us because the US is preventing him from imposing his tyrannical brand of Islamic rule in Saudi Arabia and around the world.

Now that we know why he did it should we let him have his way or should we oppose him?[/quote]

Ah, so America is responsible for defending Saudi Arabia from home-grown threats?

Interesting…

I wonder why the Saudi leadership never took Bin Laden on themselves, if he posed a mortal threat to them? Ah well, that’s another conversation there, Kooky.

But if you conservatives think America is responsible to police the whole world, including the merely potential threats to other countries, I guess we’re all going to be pretty busy with that from now on.

Here’s Ron Paul’s current comments on Giuliani, the mess in Iraq, etc:

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Please name the “special interests” that own each specific candidate. Can’t do it?[/quote]

Sure I can. It’s the Federal Reserve and the IMF/World Bank. International financiers, the Rothchilds and others. They are spread over hundreds of groups and organizations, some governmental and others private. If you’d like more information I can point you in the right direction.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You are a bafoon. The US has the highest standard of living in the world. You need to travel more.[/quote]

You responded to a point that he didn’t make. He said the U.S. is becoming a third world nation. Standards of living around the world are rising and the U.S. is unquestionably losing it’s lead in this area, as well as many others. So he is right and you are wrong. Read more carefully.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t understand your distinction between isolationism and non-intervention.

Either we are actively involved in the world or we are not. [/quote]

The distinction lies in the question of whether to use or abstain from using force. It’s no different abroad than it is at home. Libertarians and Constitutionalists don’t condone the use of coercion in human interactions, and they recognize government as the primary agency of coercion in society.

“Peace and honest trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” There is no need to become militarily involved with nations that haven’t threatened us or haven’t the means of carrying out an attack on American soil.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Really? So, what does that have to do with backing Islamic extremist groups in the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Somalia, Bangladesh, Mali, Chad, Niger, Sudan, etc., etc., What does that have to do with regaining Spain for the Islamic empire? Yes, that’s an openly stated Al Qaeda goal.
[/quote]
So fucking what? Every organization has it’s intended “goals”. Some are made public while others are kept private. Plenty of those in latter category are dubious (everyone has skeletons in his closet). Nevertheless, it’s entirely irrelevant, because the only thing that matters is the ability of said organization to carry out said goals.

You do not call in the SWAT team for every drunkard who swears he’s going to kill somebody. It’s the same thing with international crime (which terrorism falls under).

Answer this for me, who the hell is going to sacrifice themselves and their children in order to re-conquer Spain for the Arabs?

OBL & his gang can say anything they want, they can have any goals they wish. It is not until they can recruit masses of ordinary people willing to fight and die for those goals that they have an inkling of power.

Now, what sorts of things do you think drive people to join radical causes? Hint: Think of the conditions that cause people to join violent gangs in inner cities.

There’s a second part to this essay, but I’m going to leave it unwritten for now in the hopes that the first part will have sufficiently jolted your mind for you to grasp it on your own.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
He attacked us because the US is preventing him from imposing his tyrannical brand of Islamic rule in Saudi Arabia and around the world.

Now that we know why he did it should we let him have his way or should we oppose him?

“Non-intervention” says we should let him have his way.[/quote]

Actually, “non-interventionism” says we shouldn’t have funded and equipped him in the first place. That’s the part neocons always, always, always leave out.

Non-interventionism further goes on to say that, now that we’ve dug our way into into a sandtrap, let’s get out the best way we can. There are several proposed methods of dealing with existing terrorist threats from within a non-interventionist framework.

First of all, you stop feeding the flames. You pull the hell out of the occupied countries and leave them without a reason to bitch at you. This is common sense. When your boat springs a leak, what do you do first – attempt to patch the hole or grab a bucket and madly start tossing the rushing water overboard?

Simply withdrawing from the occupied territories would go a long way towards addressing the terrorist threat. At that point, you would take stock of the situation and consider whether anything further could or should be done to pursue known terrorist groups.

If they were deeply hidden and there was very little chance of finding them, you’d bite the bullet and accept the loss (let’s not pretend that the U.S. is capable of solving any international dispute and tracking down whomever it wants, because it isn’t, as clearly demonstrated in the case of OBL).

If there is a reasonable chance of capturing known terrorists, you put out a large bounty and let the magic of capitalism do it’s work. Governments of dirt-poor, third-world nations are very susceptible to bribes.

There is no reason why they wouldn’t hand over a marginal criminal group to the United States in return for a large bounty, provided they weren’t putting their popularity in jeopardy by doing so.

In neither case would you react to the criminal act of terrorism by launching a war and invading an entire nation. That be the equivalent of trying to plug-up your leaking boat by shooting bullets square into the hole.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
“Non-intervention” would have sat out WWII by not giving Japan reason to attack us.

I am sure THAT would have made the world a better place.[/quote]

If “non-intervention” had been practiced during WWI, there likely wouldn’t have been a WW2! Gee, maybe something could be learned from this. Why is it that neocons always completely ignore WWI when bringing up historical examples to justify intervention? Answer: Because history began in 1938, according to the neocons.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I have to say I am seriously disappointed with this guy.

He comes across as a radio host that only criticizes and does not offer any realistic solutions.[/quote]

And you come across as a guy who is looking to fix a broken system from within the system. Everything else is “unrealistic”…

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Ron Paul gave Rudy a reading list, so Rudy could educate himself on foriegn affairs and how they played into the rise of terrorism. That was a pretty good burn.

David Cross has a good joke about this, saying that Bin Laden didn’t attack us for our freedom, if he was trying to attack freedom then the Netherlands would be wiped off the map by now. He attacked America because of our many military bases in the middle east and because of our propping up Israel at the expense of Palestine.

And then he says How do I know that’s why Bin Laden attacked us?

BECAUSE HE FUCKING SAID SO!!!

Really? So, what does that have to do with backing Islamic extremist groups in the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Somalia, Bangladesh, Mali, Chad, Niger, Sudan, etc., etc., What does that have to do with regaining Spain for the Islamic empire? Yes, that’s an openly stated Al Qaeda goal.

He attacked us because the US is preventing him from imposing his tyrannical brand of Islamic rule in Saudi Arabia and around the world.

Now that we know why he did it should we let him have his way or should we oppose him?

“Non-intervention” says we should let him have his way.

“Non-intervention” would have sat out WWII by not giving Japan reason to attack us.

I am sure THAT would have made the world a better place.[/quote]

If non-intervention had started before entering WWI it might have worked. without the financial moral and political costs for the USA.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
He attacked us because the US is preventing him from imposing his tyrannical brand of Islamic rule in Saudi Arabia and around the world.

Now that we know why he did it should we let him have his way or should we oppose him?

Ah, so America is responsible for defending Saudi Arabia from home-grown threats?

Interesting…

[/quote]

WTF are you talking about? This is exactly what OBL is thinking. He feels America’s presence in the Arabian peninsula is preventing him from overthrowing the House of Saud.

Like it or not this is reality.

I think you need to read some books on the subject. OBL is a mortal enemy of the Saudi monarchy.