Ron Paul Interview Transcribed

7 Sep

“The Founder’s were right: non-intervention, friends and trade with people, more prosperity, and peace.”

Here’s a clip of an interview with Ron Paul on America Live with Megyn Kelly:

He’s trying to change history, and so are we. He gave this interview after he placed well in the Iowa straw poll, but got little notice in the MSM. Starting at about 1:10 into the video, Kelly asks Paul whether or not the media is ignoring him:

Paul: Sure. Yeah they are, and we need to ask them why? What are they afraid of? Well, we’re certainly in the top tier. We did well in Iowa and we have a good organization. We can raise money.

But they don’t want to discuss my views because I think they’re frightened by us challenging the status quo and the establishment. When it comes to foreign policy, monetary policy, the entitlement system, because my views are quite different from the other candidates. They’d just as soon us not get the coverage that the others are getting and they will concentrate on establishment type politicians.

Kelly: There seems to be a narrative emerging that you can’t win and therefore they’re giving you back of the hand treatment. There was an editorial in The Wall Street Journal that said “He has no chance to win.” This despite the fact that you are 152 votes within the top spot in the Iowa straw pole. In fact out of almost 17,000 votes cast you were a 150 votes or so from number one. But The Wall Street Journal and others that you can’t win. Why? Why do they believe that?

Paul: Well they want to believe it and they want to promote an idea. They don’t want to promote information because they’re having a couple poles where I either came in first or second when you match my name up against Obama. Because my votes really compete.

“I’m trying to change the course of history.”

This would be a reason why the Democrats don’t want me to win either. Because I can compete against Obama. His base is very unhappy with his expansion of the war, and his lack of interest in protecting civil liberties. And therefore they don’t want to hear from me either. But I’ve done quite well. I’m quite willing to match my name up against Obama any time of the day.

Kelly: It’s got to be somewhat frustrating for you. I mean to come in second and be as close as you were to winning in Iowa, not to mention the polling that you’ve been doing, which is fairly good. To have this kind of treatment in the media, does this disturb you?

Paul: Well it disturbs me. I don’t use the word ‘frustrating’ because I anticipate and I know how the system works, and I know what I’m trying to do, because not like I’m just trying to win and get elected.

I’m trying to change the course of history and our history in this country hasn’t been good for the last 100 years, whether it’s our drift into managing an empire, the destruction of our currency, the deficits that have been run up, the climax of the dollar reserve standard. This is big stuff and nobody else is addressing this.

So in spite of the shortcomings of the reporting of this I write if off a bit, because they don’t have any idea about the significance of the idea of the monetary system and what’s going on with the Federal Reserve.

“The peace candidate is always a very strong candidate.”

But the people, grass roots America, are startin’ to wake up. Millions of people are reading about the Federal Reserve and understanding how they bail out their friends. Trillions of dollars. Give a third of all that money they used in the bail-out, give it to foreign banks. People realize this even though the media, generally speaking, they don’t understand it, they don’t ask the right questions. And if they do understand it they don’t want to get the secret out of how the system that we have protects the special interests, the big corporations, the corporatism that runs our society.

Kelly: If I can I want to ask about your initial point, which is they don’t like your views on foreign policy. And they are controversial. You made headlines in the debate by saying you don’t think we should be interfering with Iran and it would be OK if Iran got a nuke. You also described the Osama bin Laden raid that took his life as unnecessary. That has critics saying Ron Paul is outside the mainstream.

Paul: Well I’m virtually running on George Bush’s foreign policy of the year 2000. He was very critical of Clinton, of intervention, of nation-building. He said we don’t need to be in nation-building, we don’t need to be intervening, we don’t need to be the policemen of the world. That’s George Bush; I’m just running on his foreign policy. So why is it so strange now?

You know why? Because I’m serious about it. I’m just not pandering to people. The peace candidate is always a very strong candidate. Obama was the peace candidate in the last go-around because he was going to start bringing our troops home and ending those wars. And here we’re in more wars than ever.

Kelly: But even he had some talk when it came to Iran, which is considered a state sponsor of terror and has reportedly been helping kill our troops in two battlefields. There’s a question if you’re going to let them get a nuke, who’s next? Would you let Al Quaida get a nuke. You gotta’ draw the line somewhere.

Paul: Our foreign policy has led to the death of a million Iraqis. You can’t ignore that.

As far as Iran getting a nuke, no, I don’t want them to have a nuke. I don’t want anybody to have nukes. But I understand it. And I understand that Ronald Reagan could talk to the Soviet Union and Nixon talked to the Chinese and they had murdered millions of their own people. But we didn’t say the solution was to invade their countries and take their nukes away from them.

“Millions of people are reading about the Federal Reserve and understanding how they bail out their friends.”

Iran doesn’t even have a nuke. And our CIA says they’re not even on the verge of having a nuke. They don’t have enough gasoline to provide for the people and [they] have all that oil. And we want to believe they’re on the verge of nuking somebody. I mean believe me, this is all war propaganda. They just want number six war. We have essentially five going on now.

We’re broke and the American people know we can’t afford any more wars.

Kelly: I gotta’ go soon Congressman, but I want to sneak this in before we go. If you were President Paul and it turned out that you were wrong, that I ran had the bomb and attacked Israel.
Would you step in?

Paul: No. I’d let Israel take care of them. Why should we interfere with Israel. We’re always interfering with Israel when they want to deal with their neighbors. We undermine their national sovereignty. We shouldn’t tell them how to manage their borders. I defended Israel when they took out the nukes in Iraq many years ago. Israel has 300 of these.

There’s a lot of problems in Iran, there’s no doubt about it. But I tell you what. They’re not suicidal. What has been happening, since 1953 we have interfered. They had a pretty good democracy going in ’53 and we kicked it out. Our CIA kicked it out for oil and put in the Shah. He was a ruthless dictator.

You wonder why there was blow-back? History’s on my side of this argument. And the Founder’s were right: non-intervention, friends and trade with people, more prosperity, and peace.

Kelly: Congressman, Ron Paul. Come back any time, sir.

“They don’t want to discuss my views because I think they’re frightened by us challenging the status quo and the establishment.”


One Response to “Ron Paul Interview Transcribed”

  1. charles keil September 7, 2011 at 7:48 am #

    “As far as Iran getting a nuke, no, I don’t want them to have a nuke. I don’t want anybody to have nukes.”

    I know Ron Paul will follow up this simple “I don’t want anybody to have nukes” with two even simpler points that will take the nuclear threat out of the world-historical picture completely:
    1) A general nuclear disarmament benefits every person on the planet, but especially the USA’s population because we have the most to lose. (A number of former Secretaries of State, both Republican and Democratic, have endorsed this position. It is mainstream and momentous. But MSM tend to ignore it because warmongering and war-making is such a big chunk of our failing economy.
    2) No corporation will ever build a nuclear power plant and no corporation will ever insure one. A free market, no state subsidies, gives us a world free of profoundly poisonous nuke power plants. (Tony Blair picked this up from American libertarians some years ago and made it UK policy not to subsidize the poisoning of the people.)

    “MSM” is good code for Main Stream Media and Mostly Sado-Masochistic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: