It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Has anyone read this interview with Ron Paul?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 03:16 PM
I for one have never read this interview with Ron Paul.

It is very interesting and realyy surpirses me. I recomend that everyone read it.

heres the link

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Byrd]

posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 03:20 PM
here is the link to page 1 of the interview. I tried to edit my post to include it but there is something wrong with the editing feature on ats.

posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 05:16 PM
Termite197, yes I have read parts of that, but it was nice to get the whole thing. Ron Paul speaks for a lot of people. I just hope that he wins in '08, andI am working every way that I can to see it happen.

Good find.

posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 02:27 PM
Rigged Debates And
Jailed Reporters
By Joel Skousen
World Affairs Brief

America's political king-makers may not have absolute control, but they do
have effective control. Much of the manipulation of public perception comes
through the establishment media, who serve as the self-appointed sponsors of
presidential debates. When a candidate like Rep. Ron Paul, with millions of
grass-root supporters, threatens to break through they sideline him as
"second tier," limit his camera time, and suppress the overwhelming public
support on post-debate web polls. When even that fails to work, we see them
arrest reporters outside the debate arena who dare ask 9/11 conspiracy
questions of the mainstream candidates.

The media used to be able to get away with reliance only upon the two party
system (where the winner takes all votes) to exclude the rise of third
parties. All they had to do to precondition the public to the preferred
candidates was to announce on the evening news that such and such a list of
candidates were the "front runners, according to experts." Media moguls and
other king-makers in America have always excluded less known candidates from
debates by setting an artificially high percentage of popularity as a
barrier to entry. Establishment pollsters also manipulate polling results by
framing the questions to ignore minor candidates or using sophisticated
computerized lists to poll a higher percentage of predictable voters in
areas with known demographic values.

While these tactics are still very much in use, the Powers That Be (PTB) are
having to scramble for new ways to counter the growing influence of the
internet, which has created an independent venue for non-mainstream
candidates to bypass the media blackout. has taken the lead in crucial reporting on this heighten
form of political manipulation: "During the recent presidential
debates--certainly the Republican one--CNN executives gave 'second tier'
candidates less time and exposure than 'first tier' candidates [Giuliani,
McCain, and Romney]. They did so without informing the public and in fact
seemingly misled the public during the debates and afterward about their
actions and intentions. After the recent Republican presidential debate, CNN
executives evidently manipulated internal political polls, made it difficult
for the public to find information on the real 'winner'--small-government
conservative Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex), according to widespread Internet
results." Here's the evidence:

"- GOP candidates were seated so that the 'first tier' candidates had center

"- Second tier candidates received, in some cases, only half as much time as
first tier candidates.

"- CNN moderators stated continuously that 'all' would have a chance to
answer every question, but then ran out of time before these promises could
be kept.

"- After the debate, behavior that seemed to marginalize certain
candidates--especially Ron Paul--was just as obvious.

"- CNN anchors spent a good deal of time interviewing 'major' candidates,
but far less time with increasingly popular 'second tier' candidates. The
fervent support of some second-tier candidates on the 'Net--especially
free-market proponent Ron Paul--is a major news story, but one that CNN
virtually ignored.

"-CNN put up a 'visual' after the debate but then promptly pulled it. At the
time it was pulled, it apparently showed candidate Ron Paul (R-Tex) winning
the debate by a significant majority.

"-Later, CNN put up a web-based comments page about the debate but took that
down, as well. The 'vanished' comment page has been posted at several
alternative news websites. It features numerous positive comments about Ron
Paul's performance.

"-CNN has also seemingly made it fairly difficult to find its web-based GOP
Poll on the debate's winner. Once again, Ron Paul is firmly entrenched as
the leader, and in several other Internet polls as well."

I would add to that, that questions are sometimes tailored to make major
candidates look good, and marginalize lesser candidates by trying to trip
them up or make them look extreme. In all debates so far, no embarrassing
questions have been asked of the majors which would highlight their conflict
of interest, establishment links and/or corruption: i.e., Giuliani's
financial relationship with CINTRA, (the foreign corporation that is
building one leg of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) highway system. The TTC
is part of the "NAFTA Superhighway"); or Hillary Clinton's financial
relationship with InfoUSA, (an outsourcing company run by Vin Gupta of India
that has channeled millions into the coffers of Bill and Hillary Clinton).

On the substance of the debate, one set of responses by the mainstream
candidates was particularly galling. Commentator Paul Craig Roberts
describes it best: "All of the leading Republican presidential candidates
openly and nonchalantly endorsed using nuclear weapons against Iran unless
Iran abandons its right to enrich uranium under the non-proliferation
treaty, to which Iran is a signatory (unlike nuclear-armed Israel, India,
and US puppet Pakistan).

"What is moral degeneracy if it is not using nuclear weapons to murder
masses of innocent civilians and spread deadly radioactivity over vast areas
merely in order to force a country to do as we order? If this isn't
barbarism, what is barbarism?" Roberts also said, correctly, that "War
without a just cause is murder, not war."


We've observed for years how anyone holding conspiratorial views is
denigrated mercilessly on mainstream talk shows--especially those pretending
to be conservative (Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck et al.). After this week's
GOP debate, it is clear the intolerance for journalists who ask the wrong
questions has gone to another level entirely.

Matt Lepacek, a freelance reporter working for who claimed to
have proper press credentials at CNN's Republican debate, was arrested by NH
State Police at the command of Giuliani's press secretary after asking a
question about Giuliani's foreknowledge of the collapse of the World Trade
Center twin towers. Giuliani is denying he ever indicated he was forewarned
even though there are dozens of internet copies of his TV audio interview
with Peter Jennings in which he said, "I was told that the World Trade
Center was gonna' collapse."

Another cameraman stringing for Infowars got the confrontation on tape:

The most burning question is why were New Hampshire State Police arresting a
reporter merely on the non-verbal signal from Rudy Giuliani's press
secretary? The police are scrambling to determine whose name they are going
to put on the paperwork justifying the arrest, and are refusing to release
that name until the hearing on July 1. This could result in a major lawsuit
for illegal arrest and violation of 4th Amendment rights.

Lepacek also had a web cam hidden on his person which continued to record
the sounds of his interaction with police in the patrol car after the
arrest. The police threatened him with secret detention for espionage just
because of the presence of a hidden camera. While this is ludicrous on its
face, legally, it does indicate that the influence of the federal secret
prison system has filtered down to state levels. Apparently, State Police
are willing to funnel people into this new American Gulag as
"anti-government traitors."

I predict that one of two possible scenarios will play out here. Either
State prosecutors will try to plea bargain this out of existence (with a
monetary payoff to Lepacek in exchange for immunity against lawsuits) or
they will shop for a judge who will slap a gag order on all proceedings and
deny that any of Lepacek's rights were violated. Lepacek was arrested for
criminal trespass, which will be based on the presumption that he did not
have a press pass. Note in the video that the Police took him away without
making a determination about a pass. They were acting on orders of
Giuliani's press agent.


World Affairs Brief, June 8, 2007. Commentary and Insights on a Troubled

Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted.

Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief

posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 04:21 PM
To comment on just one idea from the many that you have put forth, I am looking at ways to make sure that everyone I know votes. It's the least I can do.

I hope you and everyone votes this time. It would truly be wonderful if there was an 80% plus turnout this year. That would blow them away.

posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 04:31 PM

Originally posted by NGC2736
To comment on just one idea from the many that you have put forth, I am looking at ways to make sure that everyone I know votes. It's the least I can do.

I hope you and everyone votes this time. It would truly be wonderful if there was an 80% plus turnout this year. That would blow them away.

Oh trust me......we are on the same page!

The last few weeks I have been putting an honest effort to inform anyone I can about Ron Paul. I really think he is the miracle we have all been looking for.

I have another interview by him, let me see if I can find it.

posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 04:32 PM
And here it is:

A Conversation With an Unusual Man
by Charles Davis
by Charles Davis


Ron Paul is not your typical Republican. The Libertarian Party’s
presidential nominee in 1988, he believes in limited government and a "live
and let live" social policy. He voted against going to war in Iraq back in
2002, and he strongly opposes any military action against Iran. In fact,
Paul’s considered to be the most consistent antiwar member of Congress.
Though that position may be out of step with today's Republican Party, Paul
has enjoyed enormous success online. In the following conversation, Paul
talks about his campaign, the issues he’s focused on, and the fallout from
his exchange in the South Carolina Republican debate with former New York
City Mayor Rudy Giuliani over the role United States foreign policy may have
played in providing motivation for the attacks of 9/11.

CD: Why are you running for president?

RP: I’m running to win and to promote the cause of individual liberty and
limited government. And my goal is to shrink the size of the government and
maximize the freedoms of each individual.

CD: Is there a specific issue that you would say your campaign is focused

RP: It didn’t purposely start out that way, but the number one issue in the
country is the war in Iraq. So this has given me an opportunity to talk
about foreign policy overall, because Iraq is just a consequence of foreign
policy process. And so therefore I get to talk about the noninterventionist
foreign policy and what I’ve written about and talked about for a lot of
years, and it’s right now in the forefront. And the debates have helped me
and its brought a lot of attention to it, so a lot of the debate that’s
going on right now I’m very pleased with.

CD: I noticed your exchange in the South Carolina debate with Giuliani which
has gotten you a lot of press lately. So I’m wondering, what would you say
is the blowback, if you will, from that amongst your Republican colleagues?
Your fellow candidates weren’t very receptive to you, but how about the
actual Republican people?

RP: On the House floor I would say that people who are quiet probably didn’t
approve. But dozens and dozens have come up and been very complimentary,
both Republicans and Democrats, but more Democrats than Republicans. And
outside, of course the discussion on the Internet has been overwhelmingly
favorable and has literally been a tremendous boost to the campaign. And
it’s coming from a lot of people who are just frustrated, people who left
the Republican Party or independents, Democrats who are frustrated with the
Democrats not doing the job that they were just elected to do. And this
morning on C-span I heard somebody come on and said, "I used to be a
Democrat but I’m a Republican now, but only because Ron Paul is running." I
hear a lot of that, and of course the number of people that visit our
website now is growing by leaps and bounds.

CD: I wanted to talk to you about that. How are you overcoming your lack of
resources compared to the Mitt Romney’s and John McCain’s of the world? How
are you getting your message out successfully lacking that name recognition
and those resources?

RP: I would say the Internet’s been a tremendous help, it’s sort of a secret
weapon for a grassroots campaign. But I guess the debates have been the most
helpful, because this has drawn attention to the beliefs that I have that
are different but still traditional Republican. And that’s my argument, that
you can be a conservative and still be opposed to the war, and be a
conservative and believe in civil liberties, and be a conservative and
believe in free enterprise. So this is a very attractive position.
Republicans are tired with what’s happened, [the] budget didn’t get
balanced, and everybody’s tired with the war. Even those who want to keep
fighting it are tired of the war and wish it would end. But it’s a political
position right now that is powerful, and I just think a candidate cannot win
next year if they don’t have a strong position and a plan to do something
different in Iraq.

CD: Could you sum up what your stance is and why you believe that a foreign
policy of interventionism is not conservative or is not Republican? And
could you explain what your foreign policy is and why it is conservative?

RP: I think it used to be conservative and I think Republicans have lost
their way. Traditionally Republicans have been more of the peace party than
the war party, and we’ve been known to traditionally try to end wars like
Korea and Vietnam. Even President Bush ran on a program which to me was sort
of non-intervention, and sort of the peace side, and he complained about
Clinton and Kosovo and Somalia. So I think that’s very traditional for
Republicans, but it seems like they forget easily. Matter of fact, the
Republican Party was very strong on this House floor against what Clinton
was doing in Bosnia. So it’s interesting that sometimes it becomes more
partisanship than thinking out on principle. The noninterventionist policy
was traditionally Republican; I think it’s very conservative. I don’t see
how you can come up with any other policy than that if you’re a strict
constitutionalist. It tells you that you shouldn’t go to war unless there’s
a declaration of war, you shouldn’t go to war under UN resolutions, [and] it
should be only under the direction of Congress. But we just haven’t done
that. And all of a sudden, because of the frustration with the war, people
are looking at that and saying, "you know, that makes sense."

CD: There was a recent bill on the House floor that would have required U.S.
troops to be withdrawn from Iraq within three months. You were one of two
Republicans to vote for that bill, the only other one was Congressman John
Duncan from Tennessee. But he says that he could support a candidate who
expounds a neoconservative foreign policy because it’s only one issue and he
could agree with the other candidates on most other things. Do you think you
could support someone who backs an interventionist, some would call it a
neoconservative foreign policy, because maybe you agree with them on
economic issues? Or do you see foreign policy as the number one issue, and
that everything else kind of flows from that?

RP: A radical neoconservative I can’t support, because I think they’re very
dangerous and they’re very aggressive for starting preemptive war. I could
support one who has a more moderate viewpoint, which they call the realists.
I think Wayne Gilchrest might fall into that category. He’s not
ultra-conservative, but he and I work closely together and he has a
reasonable approach. Jim Leach was one like that. That is, they promote
diplomacy. You know, my purest program is probably not going to happen
overnight and you’re going to have to settle for something less. But I
wouldn’t accept an aggressive neoconservative. But a realist, and the
realists were really the ones who controlled George Bush Sr.. One of the
reasons, even though this was international law and I don’t particularly
like the justification for the Persian Gulf war, George Bush Sr. said you
know my mandate was to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, I had no other
authority to do that [regime change]. So he respected the mandate [as
opposed to] "lets remake the Middle East and lets just march in." So I think
those who are realists and believe in diplomacy and don’t go shooting up
from the hip, I think I could support somebody like that when I would think
that would at least be toning down this rhetoric. And maybe they would start
talking to the Iranians. Maybe they would move the Navy a little bit away
from their shores rather than marching up there with the Navy and
threatening them, and not willing to take anything off the table including a
nuclear-first strike. That is very dangerous rhetoric.

CD: Now while the neoconservatives may be more extreme, aren’t the realists
the ones that are responsible for the 50 years of foreign policy you’ve
railed against?

RP: Yeah, I think that’s true. But I’m talking about where we are and which
way we move. The realists now all of a sudden look like reasonable people
compared to the radical neoconservatives. But yeah, you’re right. So you
have an Eisenhower, who was probably closer to being in the realist camp,
but he was the one who condemned the military-industrial complex, he
wouldn’t go to war in the Suez canal, and yet he was behind the CIA getting
rid of Mossadeq. So, yes it’s far from perfect. But the fact that at least
half the time they may be right, that would be better than having somebody
who believed in preemptive war.

CD: What are the obstacles to you getting your message out there in a
presidential campaign, compared to all the other candidates with their
resources and name recognition?

RP: Probably raising enough money if you have to have some advertising. But
the Internet’s the secret weapon, and it helps a lot. It’s going to help get
the message out and help raise money too. And also I think the greatest
threat is sort of, I got a taste of it and the country witnessed it, is that
if you are saying things that challenge the status quo and challenging the
essence of foreign policy, they twist it around and they try to paint you as
being un-American. So I think that’ll be the toughest problem because I’m
expecting that I’ll get more of that. So I have to work very hard to make
sure the message is louder than their accusations that I’m in some way not
loyal and that for some reason I blame America. I mean, to me that’s

CD: Now if that exchange [with Giuliani] is the high mark of your campaign,
do you think that you were successful in that you have at least raised the
issue of foreign policy in general American debate?

RP: Oh yeah, I think its been worthwhile, but I’d like to think that was
just the beginning, not the high-water mark.

CD: How can you move your campaign to the next step up?

RP: Well, we’ll be in all the debates, and we’re still building an army of
people on the Internet, and there’s so many things going on spontaneously
that we don’t even know about. There’s so much activity every day, there’s
somebody coming up with a new website, so it’s pretty amazing what’s

CD: Speaking of being in the debates, what did you make of the head of the
Michigan GOP trying to start that ill-fated petition to kick you out?

RP: In a way it backfired just like Giuliani’s attack backfired. Because
immediately there was our petition going up, and I don’t think it took him
even 48 hours to back away from that. I mean it was ridiculous to try to
silence somebody because he made a point that maybe we’re not as
conservative as we claim. I think that totally backfired. So you don’t like
it, you don’t enjoy it, but maybe there’s more benefit. You know, when that
first thing hit with Giuliani I thought "well, you know, this is terrible,
it’s so embarrassing," yet it turned out to be probably the best thing that
could’ve happened to us.

CD: Do you think that the way the primary system works, and the whole
political system in the United States, it’s kind of stacked to support the
establishment candidates in both parties so there can’t really be a
groundswell of support for a maverick?

RP: More so all the time, especially the way they’re bunching up the
primaries so people with big money have the advantage. And also if you look
at the opportunities for anybody to do it in a third party, it’s practically
impossible because the two establishment parties make it so difficult to
even get on ballots. I mean you have to be a Ross Perot to get on the ballot
and spend millions and millions of dollars. So it’s amazing that we go
around the world using force to spread democracy and we have a few
infractions here at home. And sometimes we become less democratic as we’re
fighting overseas to promote democracy.

CD: Congressman Dennis Kucinich is kind of similar in that he is one of the
more vocal antiwar critics on the Democratic side of the debates. I know you
guys probably disagree on a load of things, but you’ve come together a lot
to work on issues of war and peace. So could you talk about your
relationship with Congressman Kucinich over the past couple years, what it’s
been like, what you think of him?

RP: We’re close friends, and we certainly agree [on the war]. And I think we
may end up voting closely all the time on the war issue. Sometimes some of
these funding bills are a little bit complex, and even Walter Jones and I
will disagree even though we agree on what we’re supposed to be doing, but
the interpretation will be a little bit different. But I think Dennis and I
usually come down on the same side of it. That is, if you don’t want the war
you quit the funding, and that’s our responsibility and it’s not the
president’s authority to do what he wants because we have the purse strings,
so you have to vote against the spending. So we get along very well on that,
and since it’s such a major issue I think I will continue to work with him
the best we can. And you know, take some of the liberal welfare spending
that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I’m not hostile toward
that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some of it against the
deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of the budget, at the same
time stopping a war, I may well be very open to funding some of these
programs. Because I’m not out to gut some of these programs that have taught
people to be very dependant on the government, like medical care. I mean,
that’s not my goal. I’ve never run for office with the goal of slashing
[those programs] even though philosophically I don’t think it’s the best way
to deliver services and prosperity to poor people.

CD: So can we look forward to a Paul-Kucinich 2008 ticket?

RP: Not likely, but I think that Paul and Kucinich will continue to work
together and do the kind of work that we’ve been doing for a couple years

CD: Finally, I was talking to Congressman Duncan (R-TN) and he told me that,
more than anyone in Congress, he probably agrees with Ron Paul the most. But
yet he still says he’s going to endorse Fred Thompson because he has a
chance to win. How do you combat that mindset that says "well, you know, I
might agree with you but these other people have a better chance?"

RP: We have to convince them by our campaign getting bigger and more
credible, and that we go up in the polls. So only time will tell.

June 8, 2007

Charles Davis [send him mail] is a freelance journalist in Washington, DC.
More of his work may be found on his personal website.

Copyright © 2007

posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 04:54 PM
If you've read many of my posts here at ATS, you know that I send e-mails, debate on other forums, talk personally to people, everything I can, to get Ron Paul's name out there.

My wife just got off of the phone to a relative after discussing Ron Paul. If we want him to have a chance we have to tell everyone as often as we can. We need to donate whatever we can to the campaign.

We need to keep it in front of the people, and not let this election get stolen. That part is important. We must have a fair election, if we have to threaten to get Russia to send over people to watch the polling places. Whatever it takes.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by NGC2736]

posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 04:55 PM
Check out this smear tactic by CNN and then scroll down to read the comments.

The amount of comments supporting him are awesome and show that CNN is doing some dirty stuff to RP.

here is the link:

[edit on 6/11/2007 by Termite197]

posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 04:59 PM

Originally posted by NGC2736
If you've read many of my posts here at ATS, you know that I send e-mails, debate on other forums, talk personally to people, everything I can, to get Ron Paul's name out there.

My wife just got off of the phone to a relative after discussing Ron Paul. If we want him to have a chance we have to tell everyone as often as we can. We need to donate whatever we can to the campaign.

We need to keep it in front of the people, and not let this election get stolen. That part is important. We must have a fair election, if we have to threaten to get Russia to send over people to watch the polling places. Whatever it takes.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by NGC2736]

Totally agree with everything you said but unfortunatley I know that there isn't going to be anything fair about this election. Just look at the shady crap that has happened already. But don't worry, it will not stop my support for him.

I am actually sorta scared for Dr. Paul, especially after seeing what happened to RFK.

[edit on 6/11/2007 by Termite197]

posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 05:22 PM
Excellent thread, if we still had WATS I would give you one...

I will be voting for Paul, because I am a firm believer in small government.

I honestly think though, as pointed out by your post, that the ingrained system that literally has an iron grip on the system will prevent him from winning...

It will basically come down to this..... the system against the people.. do the people have the ability, the dignity to go out and vote for ANY ONE aside from the "top contenders" or will ignorance once again hold us back.

What was the last election turn out? 52%? .. Bush won by 51%.. which means he got just over 25% of the vote.

posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 05:31 PM
If you read all the way through the comments, it's plain that Ron Paul has a lot of support. Naturally, the Lame Ducks on this board will call it all spamming, but we and they know that is a lie. If there were any support for the others, they would have got on and wrote something, and you can bet CNN would have made sure it got printed.

Good Post.

posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 01:15 PM
Well....It should be very interesting to see him on the Cobert Report tomorrow (the 13th).

Im interested to see Cobert's take on him.

new topics

top topics


log in