Paul: Economic crisis may be a blessing
Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:24:04 GMT
By Jihan Hafiz, Press TV, Washington


Former US presidential candidate Ron Paul
The following is an exclusive Press TV interview with US congressman Ron Paul, a unique conservative politician who wants an end to US military presence on foreign soil, advocates US withdrawal from the UN, NATO and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and opposes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Ron Paul, House representative of the 14th district of Texas, believes that US foreign policy must be reformed to avoid conflicts around the world.

Press TV: Dr. Paul, thank you for joining us. Let's start with foreign policy. How do you think the new administration will handle the war in Iraq?

Paul: The same way the old administration had. I don't think expect a whole lot of changes although he [US President-elect Barack Obama] had promised to bring the troops home in 16 months, now he isn't out on this because of the so-called agreement.

But I don't think he was ever serious about changing foreign policy. I think foreign policy in this country always stays the same whether the Republicans or Democrats lead it, because when you look at what George Bush ran on in the year 2000, he was strongly critical of Clinton's foreign policy of too much nation building and too much policing of the world, because the American people liked to hear that. But once they get in they do same thing.

So, I don't expect much change in Iraq. At the same time, he doesn't even pretend to have a difference of opinion on Afghanistan. So it isn't so much the individual countries, what he's going to do, as much as he overall endorses foreign interventionism.

And it is just of a matter of how fast you move and which leaders you have but essentially he picked all the leaders John McCain loves. The neocons love the foreign policy group that he has put together. So it is just a matter of time before the Democrat base that did not want him to continue the Bush-McCain policies... they are going to get pretty upset I think pretty soon.

Press TV: What do you think about the situation in Afghanistan?

Paul: More of these attacks and this week this serious mistake of the Afghani police being killed, but equally important is the attacks into Pakistan and innocent people are getting killed and everybody is pretending that it's no big deal. But it is a big deal, so it's just radicalizing the fringes.

See I don't happen to believe that the Pakistani government is stupid enough to say well lets go into India and start a war, but I believe no matter which society or which country it is, there is always one group that can get radicalized, and this is just more motivation. So the more people we end up killing, innocent people and civilians, or the pretence -- oh yeah this is just a terrorist we just killed a bunch of terrorists. Well… How do they know? Did they catch them and try them?

So no, I think the whole process is very bad, and I condemn it out of our own self interest. I think it's bad for America. I think the more of this we do the more costly it is in terms of money and lives. And, the more likely it is that some day we are going to be subject to a terrorist attack here at home.

You know we're over there we're easy targets. But they are capable of coming back here too. I don't believe terrorists don't have motivations and we need to think more about where the motivations come from.

Press TV: Do expect to see more of these airstrikes inside sovereign territory, inside Pakistan?

Paul: I don't see that ending. I think Obama will do it, because I think foreign policy is controlled over and above the political parties. I don't think our political parties have that much say in the matter. So I expect those attacks are going to continue.

And, unfortunately, I think Obama's been pretty adamant about how to treat Iran. He has said that maybe we will talk to them a little bit, but he is not talking about never having a blockade on Iran and if they even look like they are going to have a weapon, we have a moral obligation to stop them.

Well, did we stop Pakistan? Did we stop India? Did we stop Israel from having a weapon? So what's the big deal? But he has been very adamant. He spoke to the foreign policy of the internationalists -- the people who direct both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

Press TV: It's been a year since the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) dismissed the claims that Iran is producing a nuclear weapon. Yet we are seeing a lot of war-talk here in Washington. Why do you think that is?

Paul: Well, I think there are a lot of reasons. I think oil is an important reason. I think the neocon mentality of we're good people and we going to impose our goodness on people. I think Israel has to do something with it.

And I think some people honestly say, you know they get convinced, they say 'Iranians are bad people they might bomb us'. So for these various reasons they all come together. Same reasons they went together to go after the Iraqis. So it's a lot of misinformation, emotional reactions. But, unfortunately, if you're talking generalities, the American people don't want this.

In a way the candidate who argues more for peace wins. So, Obama was sort of the peace candidate. He wanted less intervention. But it didn't matter anyway.

But when it comes to dealing with policy, I think that our policies are locked in place. The saving grace may be that our bankruptcy in this country will make it very difficult for us to afford it just like the Soviets had to leave Afghanistan because they ran out of money and there system failed. Our system could fail and it might be a blessing in disguise.

Press TV: Do you think with the incoming administration we will see a difference in policies toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Do you think Hamas could be part of the solution.

Paul: I don't expect any significant changes there. I think he's not going to be more sympathetic toward the Palestinians. He may pay lip service to it, but if it's something that Israel doesn't endorse, it's not going to happen.

Press TV: Lets move to the economy. Why have you introduced this bill to end the Federal Reserve.

Paul: Because the Federal Reserve is a central bank that under our constitution is illegal, there is no authority for it, and it is of no value to us. It does nothing but harm because it has the power to create money out of thin air. We have legalized counterfeiting.

Why an individual like myself that cherishes personal liberty is so opposed is that it allows governments to grow because they don't have to be responsible. If you were in a free society with sound money, you would have to appropriate money, tax the people, spend the money and know exactly what was going on. But, if a secret bank can just create money out of thin air then they [the government] can circumvent the people and circumvent the Congress, and they can go fight wars and not be responsible.

See, if we tax the American people for all that we do overseas, it would end in weeks, because we don't have the money, but if you inflate the currency you can delay the payment… you worry about high prices down the road. And we have been sort of lucky to have the reserve currency of the world and we haven't suffered from the inflation.

So it just enhances big government and besides its illegal and morally its wrong. It's wrong to allow an individual to counterfeit money. Why do we allow a secret bank to counterfeit money. There are many reasons why we shouldn't have a central bank and why it's so damaging.

Early parts of a cycle where the government inflates a currency, there are some benefits because it look likes you're real wealthy but its only temporary. Now, what we are seeing the market catching up and saying that this was not such a good idea. It was a bubble.

And the bubbles that the Federal Reserve created are now coming apart and the ultimate bubble to come unglued or come apart will be dollar bubble. And we are now billing everybody to the point of trillions of dollars which means that the dollar won't be able to withstand this and eventually the world will reject the dollar -- which for us here means higher interest rates and higher prices and a country that's going to be a lot poorer.

Press TV: Why are you always referred to as the true constitutionalist?

Paul: Because I do, I follow the constitution. And it is an old-fashioned idea that you believe in it literally. Our Article 1, Section A lists what we can do, and it also says by our ninth and tenth amendment that if it's not authorized, you are not allowed to do it. So all governments should be local, and yet we have drifted away from that for the last 100 years and I just thought that it was a pretty good idea.

The founders had a pretty good idea about the constitution, to make the government very local and divide it and only have a few things bring us together as a country such as sound money and free trade.

So, I think it was a great idea. It's the oath that we all take and everybody else ignores it. I didn't think that very many people in this country cared. But to my surprise in the presidential campaign we discovered a lot. They said hey that sounds like a good idea I am so glad; I have been waiting for somebody to say something like that. So it's been very encouraging.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=6931

I find it ironic that the anti war left has voted for a candidate that supports the Bush foreign policy objectives, while they painted Ron Paul as a nut during the primaries.

As far as domestic economic concerns I tend to agree with Ron Paul, although I do not think the Federal Reserve is as big of a problem as he states. Unfortunately this country seems to be moving towards more big government socialism.

I sometimes wonder were you get your perceptions from. Ron Paul was painted as a nut by both mainstream parties as well Nader and Kucinich.

Yeah, I personally find some satisfaction in the fact that the good Dr. has been vindicated, everything he said was going to happen during the primaries has come to pass.

Then again, it's not good to be right, when it comes down to discussing the death of America and the birth of Amerika.

When did I say that the republican party embraced Ron Paul. The pro Iraq war republicans mocked Ron Paul's opposition to the Iraq war. To me that just sounds like typical politics.

I did complain about the republican's attempts to keep Ron Paul out of the debates. Ron Paul wanted to make major reforms to both the republican party and the US government. It is not exactly shocking that those who supported the current powers that be would oppose a real reformer.

This reminds me of 1992 when the UAW claimed to oppose NAFTA, but then endorsed a democrat presidential candidate who supports NAFTA, but refused to endorse a republican candidate who opposed NAFTA.