Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 6:27 pm
You last visited January 22, 2017, 5:12 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

"Glenn talks with Congressman Ron Paul

Published:

Last Edited: January 26, 2010, 11:58 am

Very interesting opinion voiced by Rep. Ron Paul.  You decide.

___________

"Glenn talks with Congressman Ron Paul

January 25, 2010 - 14:07 ET

Source GelnnBeck.com

"GLENN: Now, we always have Ron Paul on when we talk about the economy because Ron and I are well, he'd probably disagree with this, but and so would many of his supporters, but I think we're pretty close to lockstep on many of the things that he believes in the economy. The Fed is absolutely just evil. We have gone away from the gold standard. We're spending money like crazy people and we're destroying our nation. We're just destroying it. I also think that Ron Paul and I are in the same territory when it comes to progressives and the idea of a big government, and he is probably closer to our founding fathers than probably anybody else out there right now as far as an understanding of limited government. However, sometimes we go off the tracks and that's why I wanted to talk to him today because I'd like him to explain it to me.

Ron Paul, welcome to the program, sir, how are you?

RON PAUL: Good. Good to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Would you say what I just said about our viewpoints is accurate or not?

RON PAUL: No, I think that's pretty good and it seems like you've dodged your way over a little bit closer to it. So maybe you'll come over a little closer on these things we disagree on, too.

GLENN: You know, I have to Ron, I am not a guy who's afraid to admit when I'm wrong and I'm not afraid, I think anybody who stops growing is dead. And I've come a long way toward you, you know. I didn't really understand the progressive movement up until, I'd say two years ago, I really started to get a handle on it and I really started to look at the history of our country and couple that with the context of the founders. And I've come a long way towards your way of thinking.

RON PAUL: You know, Glenn, I might say that you are one of the few that will, you know, interview me. A lot of other times, you know, they don't interview me. They ask me a question and if they don't like the answer, then they start shouting. But you over these last couple of years have been willing to interview me, and I really appreciate that.

GLENN: Not a problem. And I want to make sure that this doesn't sound like a giant love fest between us because I do disagree with you, but I want to see if I can if you can make sense to me on this.

RON PAUL: Okay.

GLENN: You said in fact, can we play the audio? Do you have it? Here's the audio clip.

VOICE: They are almost like they live in a different world. The military's down, the morale is down, the money isn't there and they are looking for a couple more wars to fight. It makes no sense whatsoever.

GLENN: Okay, stop for a second. Stop for a second. I think you are right on this. You are saying that the military is I mean, we're looking for more wars to fight. The administration, both administrations I think you are saying, are saying let's go for more war. Morale is down, this doesn't make sense. You are right so far, okay?

VOICE: The military anymore because there's been a coup, the CIA coup. They run everything.

GLENN: Help me out here, Ron. This is where we go off the tracks.

RON PAUL: I wasn't able to hear that.

GLENN: That was you, I'm sorry.

RON PAUL: I didn't hear the last sentence. Why don't you formulate a question.

GLENN: The last sentence says, but it's not even the military anymore. There's been a coup, the CIA has taken our military in a coup.

RON PAUL: Not literally. Symbolically this has happened and it's been annoying to me because you know not too long ago we had, what was it, seven CIA people were killed over in Afghanistan? It was on a military base and there was no military on there. It was only the CIA, and the CIA had charge of launching the drones, and the drones were going into another country called Pakistan. And some innocent people were killed over there. So you can't separate the CIA from our foreign policy. So the people over there knew exactly what's going on. They didn't go after soldiers that particular day. They wanted to make the point that they were in war against the CIA.

GLENN: Okay. Now, hang on.

RON PAUL: And I just disagree with that. I think the military should fight our wars and they should only be when they're declared.

GLENN: Okay. I would agree with you with that on both of those statements.

RON PAUL: Okay.

GLENN: However, is it possible that the CIA is now fighting our wars because we can't look into anything because all the weasels in congress are questioning our soldiers on every we've forgotten that you fight a war by killing people faster than they kill you.

RON PAUL: I know. But if you don't endorse this war, then you can't endorse the whole principle. And I don't endorse the war because we don't know who the enemy is. And we haven't declared the war, and it's a movement we're talking about, not a country, that we're bombing countries and so it makes no sense if the military has trouble handling it, hardly should we go to some organization that has no, really no oversight at all. So I just think that this compounds our problem. And then if you really look into the CIA and all their activities, it becomes even more complex because they at times, when they want to pursue certain clandestine activities, they might not have enough funding. The $75 billion that all our agencies get isn't enough. So they make their own money. They can make their money in the drug trade, they can own businesses. I suspect that the Federal Reserve may well be involved when the CIA's in certain countries trying the reelections or pull off assassination. There's no reason under the way the Fed works that they can't loan money to other central banks and other governments. And you already agree with me we shouldn't have that type of secrecy. So all of a sudden it comes together because the CIA is doing these things that it shouldn't be doing.

GLENN: Okay. So I agree with you I think in premise. However you've got to solve a couple of things for me. One, would you agree that we do need an organization that gathers intelligence to find out what our enemies around the world are doing and we do need some things kept secret not from our congress but kept secret from, you know, the front page of the New York Times?

RON PAUL: Yeah. Yes, I agree with that and, you know, the CIA is not exactly a very old organization. The founders didn't sit around the table and say, well, how are we going to create this intelligence agency that can get involved in these internal affairs secretly and do these things. They didn't do that. They came out of World War II. We didn't have it before World War II. But up until that time we did recognize that you

GLENN: Yeah, we had spies. George Washington had spies.

RON PAUL: Pardon me?

GLENN: George Washington had spies.

RON PAUL: Yeah, you were allowed to get intelligence, and I recognize that as being proper. But today the intelligence agencies are so bloated, there are 16 of them, they spend $75 billion. And then when they get information, they get a hot lead, like a father coming in and warning them. They don't even know what to do with them.

GLENN: Okay.

RON PAUL: So that's one of my biggest beefs. They don't really protect this and they don't even act on it. And then we're right about the FBI making all these reports when these guys were learning how to fly airplanes about not landing? And it was totally ignored. So it's the ineptness and the failure for whatever reason that bothers me to no end. But I agree with you. You should have it. But so much of that information is readily available and they should get it and we will always have people coming to us and giving us information. So I separate the two. Intelligence gathering from this intrigue of overthrowing government.

GLENN: All right. So and I agree with you. I think we've I mean, what we've done to South America over the last hundred years.

RON PAUL: Right.

GLENN: Through the progressive movement has been a nightmare.

RON PAUL: Right.

GLENN: All right. So let me go one more step with you. Where I always go off the rails with you and really so many libertarians is I agree with the premise, and I didn't fully agree with this even, I don't know, three years ago, four years ago. But I agree now fully because I've seen the error of our ways and where it has led to of the idea that we should be more like Switzerland. That's what our founders wanted.

RON PAUL: Right.

GLENN: Now, and I think we differ on this a little bit. I think we should pound the bat snot out of anybody who you come over to our shores, you do something to us, we crush you. Then we leave. We don't rebuild you. We crush you and then we leave.

RON PAUL: The big question there is who did the attacking and who are you going to crush.

GLENN: I understand that. I'm not talking about anything specific. I'm talking about if somebody comes after us, they hit us, we have evidence, we crush them and then we leave.

RON PAUL: Okay. If a missile left Cuba and bombed New York City, we both would understand, yes, you go and you crush Cuba for doing what they do.

GLENN: And if Cuba, if it was just a cell and Cuba, we have evidence that Cuba was involved and hiding behind these people and have them do the dirty work, then still Cuba again.

RON PAUL: But the big danger today is if you apply that to, say, the underwear bomber, does that justify going in and start bombing Yemen? I mean, I don't buy that.

GLENN: Not unless Yemen, not unless Yemen was involved with the underpants man.

RON PAUL: Right.

GLENN: I mean, if they are turning out

RON PAUL: If it's a government function.

GLENN: Yeah, if they are turning people out and they know and they are involved and we have evidence, then yes, we do. But here's the other thing. I believe that we should get out of all the rest of the world, but I just think we should get out slowly. We built this nightmare over a hundred years, is that we can't leave the world in a vacuum. Would you agree that if we had a, you know, if we put everybody on notice, "Hey, by the way, Germany, you are going to be responsible yourself. Japan, you are going to have to start defending yourself." Everybody else, that we could develop a plan to pull back and to let the rest of the world know we're not we've gone awry in the last 100 years and we're going to change back to what our founders wanted, but it's going to take some time to not freak out the world and also not to give us, you know, to create a vacuum.

RON PAUL: Yeah. No, I agree with that, too, and I work for that all the time. I would be willing to do that. But the problem there is it's not going to happen and we're going to leave in a hurry like the Soviets left in a hurry. Their whole system broke down for financial reasons and you understand the economics of what is happening. If we have a dollar crisis on top of this financial crisis, the dollar crisis meaning we can't pay our bills and they will be coming home. We will leave. And then you are going to see the independent movement in this country, the Tenth Amendment people and the nullification people and welcome home. But that will not be the gradualism that you might like and I might be able to support.

GLENN: Right. I understand that. I mean, I see on the front page of the Drudge Report now Bin Laden indicator of coming attack. And I was just driving in this morning and I was thinking, you know, can we afford another 9/11, what would happen to us, you know. And you are right. We would at some point we're going to run out of money and then it's all going to change.

RON PAUL: Yeah, that's it.

GLENN: All right. Congressman Paul, thank you so much.

RON PAUL: Thank you for having me. "

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/35490/

Entry #1,612

Comments

1.
MADDOG10Comment by MADDOG10 - January 26, 2010, 12:23 pm
This is the man we should have had in the White House in the first place. He hasn't waivered one ioda since I listened to him previous to the people endorsing the candidates.
He hasn't turned left, steered right at all. A straight shooter down the middle.. The wanna-be in the white house could learn from him.
Mr.arrogance wouldn't listen to him anyway. The people will be dancing in the streets when they have a Real man for President, instead of this PUPPET.....
2.
konaneComment by konane - January 26, 2010, 1:17 pm
Thanks Maddog! I became acquainted with him in the run up to the election and have to agree with what you said. Same stance all the way down the line, steady as we go.

Yes we need him in the White House, along with a congress full of those of a similar mindset. Then we can have real change we can believe in and see ... going in a correct direction for this nation and the world.
3.
ToddComment by Todd - January 26, 2010, 1:25 pm
I think where Ron Paul pissed off 90% of the people was when he said 9/11 was our fault. That is STILL stuck in my mind, and it's been years since he said it.

9/11 was NOT our fault, even indirectly. It is the fault of a wing of a religion that has been doing that kind of things for thousands of years. The Koran was not written in the 20th century, lest Ron Paul forget.

I am on board with most of what he and Glenn are talking about, but sometimes it's hard to separate actual policy statements from general complaints on his part.

Like when he talks about the CIA. He complains about several things, but it's hard to understand what HE would do. Would he make it weaker? Stronger? Who really knows?

Hopefully what he is saying is that we need to make it STRONGER by vastly increasing the funding of it, and by placing better Executive-branch control over it. The PROBLEM is when Congress gets involved with the CIA. Actually, what am I saying? It was the OBAMA administration that PUBLISHED the CIA enhanced interrogation techniques.

So I guess the problem is with the elected officials -- the politicians -- right? I think 90% of the voters want Jack Bauer out there fighting terrorists, and we want the politicians to get the hell out of their way.

It's kind of a dilemma because if the CIA has no accountability to politicians, what will keep it in check? It's almost un-solvable.

So what's Ron Paul's solution? Anyone know?
4.
MADDOG10Comment by MADDOG10 - January 26, 2010, 2:11 pm
Ron Pauls expression on the CIA. Don't know if anyone knows a solution as of yet.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/286116


5.
konaneComment by konane - January 26, 2010, 2:33 pm
Thanks Todd! WorldReports.org/news has been a stretch for me to read but has provided an item by item picture into the convoluted dealings of the CIA. It alleges it's been hijacked from its original function and is financed by off the Treasury books ponzi money much of which has been stolen from our Treasury placed into accounts all over the world. A different perspective, providing events and references.

For me it's another piece of information mentally filed to see if or how it may fit later. Being a political conservative, I've experienced a reality check reading it.
6.
konaneComment by konane - January 26, 2010, 2:49 pm
Thanks Maddog! Remove funding is the only way.... banking laws been decimated with no real accounting. Too many massive slush funds too easy to siphon funds. No one in Washington has cojones or is too bought out .... except Paul. Perhaps Paul's allegations will bring the problem out into the open.

In the meanwhile vote out incumbent and put new blood in congress.
7.
time*treatComment by time*treat - January 26, 2010, 3:06 pm
Beck will stab him in the back, soon enough. :)
The flaw in Dr. Pauls argument is that it requires at least a passing interest in history and an understanding of cause and effect. Our media makes a big show of Americans arriving to help put out the fire, but no mention of who funded/supplied the arsonist. Earthquake relief in Haiti: big show. Supporting the Duvaliers and their corrupt successors for decades: no mention.

We memorialize Hawaii 1941, but have no knowledge of Iran 1953 (Ajax), Guatemala 1954 (PBSuccess), Cuba 1961 (Bay of Pigs), Chile 1973 (FUBELT). On and on, in dozens of nations. Same with Zimbabwe. Mugabe was once a darling of the West. Guess who initially funded Hamas (to counter the PLO; how's that working out, these days?). Each "adventure" could be its own book. Mention those to most people and watch (a) their eyes glaze over or (b) vehement denials. Our media didn't tell us, so it didn't happen. That's also why the Prez caught so much flak for what critics called his "apology tour". "They hate us for our freedoms" takes less time and thinking to digest -- even though plenty of other "free" nations (re-ranked every year by businessmen, tourists, & policy) don't have that problem.

One is a lot happier with "Lincoln freed the slaves" than actually reading the Emancipation Proclamation with all of its "exceptions". Raises too many uncomfortable questions. Most of history is not "good guys vs bad guys" rather "our guys vs their guys".

We all know someone who refuses to eat at a certain restaurant chain, buy a certain brand of car, or date outside their religion, etc. because of ONE incident. I'm simplifying for space - imagine :) - Expecting others to forget/forgive something just because we're unaware of it ignores human nature.
8.
konaneComment by konane - January 26, 2010, 4:21 pm
Thanks Time*treat! Am not strong on history as you are. Sounds like you're citing elements in our government playing devil's advocate.

There is only so much feigning stupidity, failing to address problems, living in special interests' pockets that congress can do before we all pound our heads into brick walls. They're not stupid, they're not unaware, they're playing bluff while we're being torn apart from within and sold on the auction block by banksters.
9.
MADDOG10Comment by MADDOG10 - January 26, 2010, 5:12 pm
Time -treat,
   I agree mostly with what you've said, except that we can't renegotiate what has hapened in Iran, Gutamala, Chile, Cuba years ago. The fundamentals of what caused these things to happen is because of the CIA. In other words other countries look at them as terrorist also.
   So, what do we do to irradicate the structure? We dispose of their doctrine and start anew, but not controlled or funded by the Government. Hell, even the " soldiers of Fortune " were funded by the CIA as their strategists.
   People have even forgotten the "Gulf of Tonken" incident that got us pulled into the Vietnam aggression (not war) because the politicians didn't have enough intestonal fortitude to declare it a war (NO B*$$S) was staged by the CIA. We were never fired upon by the North Vietnamese that day.
    Yes, the backlash of their actions are haunting even today, but it needs to be dismantled as Ron Paul has said. The U.S. needs to get out of other peoples buisness and let them take care of their own. We need to focus on the U.S.A and clean-up our own backyard before we even consider helping other nations.
     His message is clear, precise and in my opinion, what we need Now....
10.
konaneComment by konane - January 26, 2010, 5:48 pm
Thanks Maddog! Provided the background stuff I've read is accurate, I agree with what you've said ..... especially getting out of other people's business.

I didn't realize that "Gulf of Tonken" was staged by the CIA. Wonder how many other pots they've stirred, useless battles waged, lives lost, monies spent, taxes raised and coffers both domestic and foreign raided by them? It'll all come out sooner or later.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.