FOR ONE
TIME!
HERE IS
Your Chance To Hear
D. Victor Christoff
of
FAHF MAGAZINE
Interviewing
Congressman
Ron Paul
for
a good
45 minutes.

RUN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE  
FAHF EXCLUSIVE
Fabulous And Highly Favored Magazine         
Interviews
[ Yahoo! ] options
                                                                       CONNECTING THE BEST WITH THE BEST
RON PAUL INTERVIEW
Data not available (103)

Return to Previous Page
'">



































RON PAUL                                        
In Washington D.C., for a whirlwind of speeches and functions, the
Republican presidential candidate whose ideas are challenging the
nation granted an in-depth interview to FAHF’s D. Victor Christoff.
Read the forty-five minutes of frank, no-holds-barred ideas that could
change your views of America!

Government * The Economy * Corruption * Lobby Groups and Special
Interests * The Middle East War * Domestic Policy * The Democratic
Party * The North American Union * The New World Order * America’s
Empire * The Election And More!

  ********************




                











********************
Washington, D.C. (FAHF Press) – I first see Ron Paul in the Café Capitol at the Hilton. Among
other things, he is there to deliver a keynote speech for the Family Research Council’s Values
Voter Summit. Issues ranging from abortion, heterosexual marriage advocacy, tax and fiscal
policies, restoration of Constitutional rights, and government ethics are debated by hundreds of
advocates in the halls and the ballroom. Walking about are Presidential hopefuls from both the
major parties. Candidates such as former Republican Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney are
followed by trains of animated supporters, reporters, and television crews with their ubiquitous
cameras and glaring lights.

While Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) will have to undergo such impositions later on, he is not at
this time. Unlike all the other candidates this reporter saw eating with circles of admirers at their
tables, Paul is in the café for one reason only: to enjoy a meal.

There is no fanfare when he sits at his table with his Communications Director, Jesse Benton, and
another staffer. And although well-wishers stop by to shake his hand, Paul is quietly going about
just being a human being. The one exception is when the Hilton wait service staff and café
management team gather about him to announce their support for his Presidential bid. This
reporter notes that this is unprecedented. No other candidates in the café are afforded such an
outpouring.

Paul graciously smiles, thanks them, shakes hands, and sets down to his meal. In another
departure from the commonplace occurrences regarding the other candidates – whose supporters
run to fetch salmon dinners, sweetmeats, and Danish for their hopeful – Paul will not have any of
this. When he wants a coffee refill or a bowl of soup, he rises and gets it for himself.

What kind of man is this, I ask myself.

Preparatory to answering this question during my interview, I remind myself that he is the only anti-
war candidate who has consistently held firm. Indeed, from the onset of the wars in the Middle East,
he was in strong opposition to them. Along with his other views, which include ending the Federal
Reserve Banking System, The Internal Revenue Service, battling government corruption by
increasing the power of House oversight committees, and opposing attempts to establish the North
American Union (NAU) – he is undoubtedly a candidate on his own mission. He is a man who listens
only to the people, his conscience and the precepts of the Constitution.

That his growing base of supporters and campaign funds show that Paul is rapidly breaking
through the middle ranks is unquestioned. For this reason, I have also prepared to ask him why
news coverage of his burgeoning campaign has not been reported.

But by now, Ron Paul has seen me. With a nod, he summons me over to a quiet alcove. After a few
cordial (and unexpected) amenities, the interview begins.


RE: US GOVERNMENT

QUESTION: Mr. Paul, almost every American political scientist agrees that our worst problem is
government overload – or, more plainly, that our government has too many issues to properly
address in a timely manner. How would you repair a situation that many say has gotten out of
hand? Is it true that because of overload, Congress cannot even find the time to pass laws
restricting the use of advanced technology by criminal elements?

RON PAUL: If that’s the consensus (of political scientists), you’ve got to get the people behind it
and that’s what the election is all about. If I’m elected, that’s what the people want. They want to get
a handle on government. It has to do with government here at home messing around with our
personal privacy, government becoming a nanny state, government running the economy when
they don’t know what they’re doing, or taking it upon itself to police the world. So you have to do
whatever you can, wherever you can, as quickly as you can. And the best guide is just to follow the
Constitution, get back to the ground rules and limit the size of government. I think I have a great
responsibility as a member of Congress and as a private citizen to see that technology is not used
against the people – that’s my greatest concern. Yes, there are going to be abuses of technology,
and when (laws) are violated, the States, through their legislatures, are supposed to deal with that.
It’s important to make sure that the Federal government doesn't’t use any of this technology to
violate the people’s privacy.

QUESTION: Is there a specific way you would curb these technologies? Could another sub-
governmental arm staffed with professionals handle it? Would you consider placing a moratorium
on advanced technologies that can be used criminally, or those that are controversial, or those not
supported by interest groups?

RON PAUL: Yes, and I still make the case with the government and even in the debates when
research on these issues comes out. In Washington you have two choices: either you prohibit this
technology or you subsidize it. Research is handled in this fashion. The government shouldn’t be
involved at all. We certainly shouldn’t subsidize it because it’s very offensive to some people. And
we certainly shouldn’t prohibit it at the Federal level because (legislators) are not smart enough to
sort these things out. More research by professionals is needed. When decisions regarding this
technology are difficult and confusing and questionable, and when there’s a problem with ethics,
the more a local government is involved the better. I don’t think the Federal government should be
involved other than to oversee its own research, which, again, I think they shouldn’t do. But if they
are involved in it and pressing matters arise, then we should have something to say about it. Still,
my own answer is the government shouldn’t be involved because it gets too controversial and too
complex.    


RE: GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION

QUESTION: Congressman, allegations about government corruption are rife. But, to go from the
general to the specific, what are your thoughts about Congressman Henry Waxman’s initiative to
investigate the State Department’s inspector general, Howard Krongard, for contracting fraud in
Afghanistan and Iraq? Do you support such investigations?

RON PAUL: Absolutely. I think we were derelict, and that’s why Republicans lost credibility because
they wouldn’t have any significant oversight. And there’s pretty good evidence that a lot of
corruption has occurred. These contracts – how did they get these big military contracts? It’s
horrendous. When you think about it, even during World War II when the Democrats were in
charge, they had oversight. Even in the midst of World War II, which is pretty impressive. So I’m all
for oversight. But I think the Republicans should have done it before and, since the Democrats are
in office now, I just hope they do it ethically and diligently.

QUESTION: Continuing on the subject of government corruption, a non-governmental organization
called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has listed dozens of mostly
Republican members of both houses for flagrant violations of ethics. While we’re very glad to say
you’re not on the list (Ron Paul chuckles), what is your reaction to the several members in the
study that are already under federal investigation including: Representatives Calvert, Doolittle,
Feeney, Jefferson, Lewis, Miller, Mollohan, Murphy, Renzi and Young, as well as Senator Stevens.
You probably know all these elected officials –

RON PAUL: (laughing) – I’ve never met any of them. I’ve never had anything to do with them. I’ve
never even said hello to any of them.

QUESTION: (laughing) I think the secret police over there are laughing too. But getting back: Are
these investigations representative of the collapse of the Republican Party, as you’ve already
claimed?

RON PAUL: There are a few Democrats on that list, like William Jefferson, so we don’t have a
monopoly on it. We can’t kick them out because we wouldn’t have a core. If we kicked out
everybody that was suspect – just kidding – there wouldn’t be anyone left in Congress. Yet
seriously… my position as far as dealing with these people who have been indicted is that they
have to back off and get out of their committees. If they get charged, they have to allow the
process to go though. But the Republican Party is in a mess. I don’t see this in conspiratorial terms.
I see it in ineptness, and once they got control of the government, power became more important
than philosophy. They did anything they thought they needed to do to maintain power, but they
sold out, and we re-elected them. They expanded the welfare programs. They fell into the trap of
accepting the Democrat’s position of policing the world, and President Bush won the election by
condemning (former) President Clinton for going into Somalia and Bosnia, and Bush didn’t like
policing the world, he didn’t want to be the policeman, and he didn’t want to be a nation builder.
That was his foreign policy.

Why they do these things – I have no idea. But I do know that when they got in office, they
changed their policy. They became big government people, and they literally undermined the
support of the base of the Republican Party. It wasn’t a party anymore. That’s why we got really
whipped last year. Of course, what I’m trying to do is change the image of the Republican Party
more to what it used to be.     

QUESTION: That and your many legislative efforts to get out of the IRS (Internal Revenue Service),
which is also what you want to do?

RON PAUL: Sure.

QUESTION: And to get out of the Federal Reserve, as you’ve said, and perhaps making more
oversight and accountability issues available to the public?

RON PAUL: Right.

QUESTION: And until you get us out of the Federal Reserve, how about getting the M-3 back up
there? (Editor’s Note: The M-3 monetary aggregate has traditionally been published by the Federal
Reserve Banking System. It informs the public about how much paper currency is printed. On
March 23, 2006, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ceased publication of the
M-3 monetary aggregate.)

RON PAUL: (chuckling) We couldn’t do that because it costs too much money.

QUESTION: (laughs)

RON PAUL: One of the Federal Reserve’s officers came before our committee and said the M-3
was withdrawn to save money. As if he needed credit anyway!


RE: THE ECONOMY

QUESTION: You’ve recently returned from a campaign stop in Michigan where over three million
manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last seven years. The loss of our precision machine tool
industry is widespread, but Michigan has been especially hard hit because of its failed auto
industry. Since most of America’s machine tool industries have been bought up and outsourced to
other nations, what is your reaction to both the Michigan auto industry crisis and the devastation of
the machine tool industries?

RON PAUL: I think it’s a reflection of the bad policy in Washington that’s misleading the country. I
think that the country is going to continue to deteriorate economically;  not so much because of
what the government isn’t doing, but because they’re interfering when they shouldn’t be. For
instance, some of this outsourcing comes because of some of our trade agreements. I believe in
free trade. I don’t believe in making trade agreements that result in negotiations where we end up
being short-changed. I think it’s partly that, even though I will still argue that the less trade barriers
there are the better. But less management is needed. I don’t like the WTO (World Trade
Organization) or NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and so on because they’re
borderline organizations whose trade agreements hurt us.

Another reason why jobs tend to go overseas is that we deal with a lot of inflation here. Because
we print a lot of money, the prices for goods and services are high, and we respond by over-
regulating, which makes us less competitive. We’re overtaxed too, and that makes us less
competitive. We’re able to export our dollars – all we do is print them, we don’t have to earn them –
and the world, up until now, has been pleased to take our dollars. So the rationale is, ‘Why not
export paper money rather than working hard?’ It’s like an individual who is a counterfeiter. If he
can get away with it, do you think he’d work very hard?  Well, we haven’t had to work very hard
because we have become the world’s counterfeiter. That is going to come to an end, and that’s
why we’re going to run into problems. But you take, for instance, the question I was asked in the
debate the other night about the right of workers to organize. They do. But they don’t have any
right to get special privileges, as defined by law. This is not to say that they can’t get the edge over
the businessman. They have a right to organize. They have a right to negotiate. But they don’t
have the right to have a monopoly over the contract with the business people because – especially
in Michigan – wage scales have gone out of control. So the average core worker now wants his job,
he wants to be well paid, but now he has to be paid 87 dollars an hour.  

QUESTION: (laughing) That’s not bad money, wouldn’t you say?

RON PAUL: (chuckling) Yeah, and I’m not sure what to make of that when I look at the hours I
spend working in Congress. But how do you compete with someone who’s very, very energetic in a
growing economy that might get laborers to work for 45 dollars an hour? It’s almost impossible to
compete. So that artificial boost in wages comes because workers in America have an artificial
clout, due to our labor laws. All these things contribute to the trouble we’re undergoing. You have
the monetary issue, the labor issue and the regulation issue.     

QUESTION: Let’s say you’re the President. What would you do to end all this trouble?

RON PAUL: All I can tell you is the five things that we ought to do, because the President doesn’t
have the authority to do it all by himself. The President has to say, “This is how we get the
economy moving, this is what we need to do,” and build up a consensus because the President is
not a dictator. He can’t change labor laws. He can’t get rid of the Federal Reserve all by himself. He
has to have the Congress participating. If you want to change tax laws, you have to ask the
Congress. But the positions and the policies can be designed by the President. You can have
these five things that you must work for, but then you have to convince people that they would help
the economy.

QUESTION: I’m glad you mentioned the Federal Reserve because it leads into my next question.
Former Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, says that the Euro dollar may replace the U.
S. Dollar as the Reserve’s currency of choice. If the U.S. Dollar loses its prominence in world
markets, does this mean that the Federal Reserve will impose new restrictions and-or demands on
America’s domestic financial policies?

RON PAUL: I agree with Alan Greenspan that the Euro may replace the dollar, and they’re shifting
that way now. One of the reasons is that the Euro is going up (in value) and the dollar is going
down. Even allies like Kuwait have stopped taking dollars for their oil, and some have even
theorized that the friction with Iraq and Iran had come because they said, “We don’t want dollars
anymore; we want to use Euros, since dollars are a threat to our financial system.” So there is that
threat. But ultimately it’s not the answer because the Euro, which is based on the economy of
Europe, is also a fiat currency, a paper currency. So everything is relative. Still, the dollar is so bad
that many would take a paper Euro in place of it. Take even the Canadian dollar – it’s not backed
by anything. But all of a sudden, the Canadian dollar is considered more valuable than our dollar. It’
s considered less damaging than our dollar.

QUESTION: Why?

RON PAUL:  I think that in spite of that perception that Canada is a runaway socialist country, it
really isn’t, and they’re not committed to the endless spending that we are in policing the world. In
fact, they take a major position on that. They don’t want to see troops in Iraq. And I’ll bet they’re not
going to volunteer their troops (either).

QUESTION: Because of America’s policies?

RON PAUL:  I think that has something to do with it. Empires disappear, usually because they
spread too far and wide around the world, and that leads to deficits and inflation. Even back in the
old days, countries that had empires saw their currency devalued. They traded it for less and less
over time. While the Romans reduced the gold and silver content of their coinage, today we do it
with computers. Things happen a lot faster. Paper money doesn’t last in today’s environment. A
hundred years or so from now, when your great-great grandchildren make their choices to invest in
Federal Reserve notes or gold-backed currency, who do you think will get the best deal?

QUESTION: You know your history well. In fact, every empire in the past has devalued their money
over time, haven’t they?

RON PAUL: (nods) Especially when they carelessly enter a war.

QUESTION: A sobering qualification. But let’s go back to what you said earlier regarding the
Congress and a President’s need to persuade the legislators there to end the Federal Reserve. If
you cannot persuade Congress to abolish the Federal Reserve, will you re-enact President
Kennedy’s Executive Order 11110 – which made silver the basis of underpinning the nation’s
currency – and do an end run around partisan politics? (Editor’s Note: Kennedy’s E.O. 11110 is
still in effect, although it is not enforced.)

RON PAUL: In a way, that is one of my proposals. My idea is to legalize the Constitution by using
silver and gold-backed notes as legal tender again, with the one change that there be no fixed
ratio between gold and silver. I’ll allow gold and silver to circulate as money, so I don’t advocate
silver as the sole basis of our currency. I think that would be chaotic. But if people are rejecting
dollars and they can’t save in dollars – we don’t save in dollars now, anyway – and some want to
invest in the parallel currency of the gold standard, they can buy gold bars, and they’ll have money
there. But a couple of laws would have to be changed. You’d have to remove the sales tax and the
capital gains taxes on coinage because it no longer is money if the taxing is appreciating value. In
the courts today, if you have a dispute in a gold contract – gold contracts are actually technically
illegal but they’re not practical because if you have a dispute, then they will take an arbitrary
amount of time and settle the dispute in terms of Federal Reserve fiat bank notes. And you want
the dispute to be settled in terms of the weight of gold and silver.

(So my proposals) would just be restoring the Constitution. I think that in this day and age, it’s so
much easier to offer this because the world operates with fluctuating currency that requires
heinous adjustments. We’ve got computers and all this technology, people go to the bank – with
my proposals in force, things would end up with people going to the store saying, “Well, I’ve got a
gold dollar versus a paper dollar,” and make the choice to pay for something that has real value.
And if people get to know this, they would, all of a sudden, be putting their money in gold bonds
and saving their money in gold. The main thing the government would be responsible for is that, if
somebody issued the bonds other than the government, then that somebody can’t commit fraud.
That somebody would be in violation of the law. FOR THE 11 PAGE INTERVIEW

READ WHAT RON PAUL KNOWS ABOUT GOVERNMENT INSIDERS WHO CONTROL    
AMERICA’S DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICIES.  FIND OUT HIS STRATEGY TO STOP THE
RAPE OF AMERICA’S ECONOMY IN THE REMAINING TEN PAGES OF HIS INTERVIEW.  
EXCLUSIVE TO FAHF MAGAZINE.    
ORDER
                                               
                                              Under   Construction
                        visit www.fahf.net