2008 Election: Congressman Ron Paul On Guns, Money, and
the New World Order
Ron Paul Interviewed by Erik Fortman, Feb 23, 2004
he following is a partial transcript of an interview with
Congressman Ron Paul on February 23, 2004. The full interview can be found in my
upcoming book, Webs of Power: Government Agencies, Secret Societies, and Elite
Interviewer, Erik Forman - Congressman Paul, thank you for providing time for
this interview. With your permission I would like to skip the formalities, as my
readers are fully aware of your Libertarian ideology and your platform. I would
specifically like to talk about certain powers in our government that, to the
thinking of a growing band of Constitutionalists, seem to have taken control of
the political system itself. First question: do you believe there are secret
forces at work that are attempting to dismantle the Constitution and the Bill of
Congressman Ron Paul - I don't know what the best word is, but secret is pretty
good. They're certainly not known to a lot of people; it's actually what their
doing. But then again, it's not absolute secrecy. If you look around you can
usually get the information. There was a time when nobody even knew who was a
member of the CFR or the Trilateral Commission. I think it's a bad sign that
they're not as secret as they used to be. They're bolder now. But there is an
agenda. They're behind the scenes in many way - very secretive. And, that was
certainly the case on those individuals who planned and pushed us into the Iraqi
EF - I've read in The New America that you are aware of the Round Table Groups,
Skull & Bones, and other "secret societies" that have actively participated in
the dismantling. In your essay "Neoconned", you went so far as to align the Bush
Administration with Trotskyites. However, it seems that the Bush/Skull & Bones
guys are perpetually fighting the United Nations, the CFR, the Bildebergs. Are
the Bohemian Grove Republicans on the same team as the Rockefeller Round Table
members, or are they at war?
RP - You know, their rhetoric suggests they might not like the United Nations,
and you hear that often. They'll be complaining about the United Nations, and
this and that. But, we have to remember, when it came time to get authority and
a reason to go to war, they mentioned the United Nations twenty-one times in the
authority, when we voted for the authority for the President to go to war when
he felt like it.
I think what's going on, they're not anti-U.N., they're anti-U.N. if they don't
do exactly what they want. Because there is a fascist-type faction that wants to
keep the military/industrial complex going, and the oil control. Then there's
the Kofi Anan-type guys. They are Socialists. They like world government.
Richard Perle, not too long ago, made a statement that he thought we should get
out of the United Nations. Well, I think that's, sort of, to pacify some of our
supporters. They figure, "Oh, this is great. We've never had a President so
sharply critical of the United Nations." But in his mind, they may well be
believing they are saving the United Nations or transforming the United Nations,
rather than being opposed to world government.
EF - You have also written (and I have quoted you) that the U.N. is actively
working to criminalize the 2nd Amendment. Who do you think the men at the top
are, and what is their ultimate plan?
RP - Anybody in Washington that likes big government, authoritarian government,
which is most of them; deep down, the 2nd Amendment is their greatest obstacle,
in the physical sense. Their other greatest obstacle is the right of free
I think that they haven't been able to be as aggressive with guns because it's a
healthy sign of this country. I think our people defend the 2nd Amendment better
than they defend the 1st Amendment. Which is sort of a twist, I think. Twenty
years ago that probably wasn't the case.
Once again, what they say and what they really want are two different things.
They criticize the U.N, yet they want to build it up. They can say they support
the 2nd Amendment. At the same time, they wouldn't mind curtailing that freedom.
Because that is the ultimate freedom.
I kid a lot at my speeches and say, you know, I believe in gun control. I want
to take the guns away from those 100,000 federal bureaucrats who own them. The
Al Gores of the world, Schumer, these people…they want a monopoly of the guns.
They never talk about getting rid of the guns from the bureaucrats. But, they
want to get rid of the guns from the people who can't defend themselves.
EF - Going off that, Americans are still reeling from the '95 Clinton ban? How
many Congressmen and Senators would you estimate are actually directly involved
with these plans of destruction? Or can most claim ignorance?
RP - You know, it's weird. From outside and observing it objectively it looks
like that's what they are dedicated to. Many are sort of dupes.
It's sort of like us on our side, who believe in pure liberty. We have a lot of
support and a lot of help. But, a lot of people aren't as dedicated. On the
left, there's probably just a few who really believe in totalitarian government
completely and totally. So, it's the propaganda that you have to watch out for.
Just look at how the propaganda machine gets busy when they decide the country
must go to war. It's really a powerful force.
EF - You have sponsored legislation that would get America out of the United
Nations. Some Americans believe that if we must go to war, that the United
Nations would be the people to fight. You have claimed that the U.N. is actively
working to destroy American sovereignty. Can you list of the main bullet points
that support that theory?
RP - Well, just everything they've done. Everything the U.N. does from day one,
you give up a certain amount of your sovereignty. And, the worst giving up is
this notion of going to war under U.N. resolutions, which we did very quickly
after we got in the United Nations. There was a U.N. resolution and we sent off
all those men to get killed in Korea.
Whether it's that, or the WTO that manages trade, or the IMF that we subsidize
with our taxpayers' money and then they go off and play games with their special
interests. They rarely ever help poor countries. The World Bank isn't any
better. That's an international welfare scheme. It's sold as a scheme that's
going to help poor people in poor countries. But, all these programs end up
helping the very wealthy, connected corporations and banks.
EF - You talk about the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank. With these groups, the
American Government has been complicit in many atrocities. We've used our troops
to overthrow democratically elected leaders, massacred tribes and dissenters. I
am against the United Nations. But, if they don't stop our government from
committing these acts, who does it fall to?
RP - The American people have to be responsible. And yet, they don't have much
clout, and they're not as well informed, and they respond to the propaganda. But
then the most important branch is the U.S. Congress, because we're there, we're
sworn to uphold the Constitution. If they - if the executive branch or the
United Nations - oversteps their bounds, our moral and Constitutional
responsibility is to restrain them.
But, Congress never seems to and the people don't seem to hold it against too
many. We're going through this right now with Iraq and Afghanistan, spending
these hundreds of billions of dollars, not doing any good at all. At the same
time, we're going broke.
EF - About the police state and the seemingly endless assault on civil
liberties: Can you recall a time in American history when the common,
blue-blooded American was more in danger of losing the powerful right of life,
liberty, and pursuit of happiness than he or she is today? Or have we always
been clandestinely oppressed, and every generation thinks their loss of liberty
is the worst?
RP - It has been going on a long time. In fact, we shouldn't be totally
pessimistic. I think the Internet and radio shows have awakened a lot of people.
The fact that we stirred up opposition to the Patriot Act is pretty good,
because nobody of significance as yet has been pulled out of their bedrooms in
the middle of the night and hauled off. Though, we have the Guantanamo-type
arrests. That's a little different than what we are afraid of.
The Civil War probably did more to undermine the principle of the Republic than
any other one particular war. But, if you look at the violation of civil
liberties in World War I, I mean, they were atrocious. And that war was
unnecessary as well.
So, it seems like all those things are bad now, and there's more
internationalism. There's probably more awareness, too. It's just that those who
have become aware and would like to stop it - we're still in the minority. We
don't have control.
EF - Many Libertarians agree that our right to bear arms is the only thing that
assures a defense against martial law, and the insurance for the other nine
Amendments. Do you believe that the Clinton-sponsored assault rifle ban
(currently supported by President Bush) is unconstitutional? If so, what do you
say to the millions of Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment, yet support
RP - Ha…Well, you mean go along with the ban. That's a personal choice on what
you do. It is unconstitutional, and that's why I have a bill that would repeal
it. I think what you're leaning to is they go along with it and the question is
whether or not you should practice civil disobedience and just ignore it. People
do that at their own risk.
Sort of like, I don't think much of what the IRS does as being legal or
constitutional. I mean, it's pretty abusive. Especially if you compound it on
the way they collect taxes, and then what they do with the money. They then take
your money and they enforce bans on automatic rifles. It's all pretty bad.
But, when it comes to what somebody would do, we shouldn't be complacent to go
along and say well it's not so bad and we'll just play this game. But, I take
the position that I should do whatever I can to change it, so that's why I get
involved in politics. Others, who have chosen another route - whether it's
taxes, or guns, or whatever - they do it at risk because they practice civil
You can be absolutely right on the Constitution, but the Constitution is no
longer a defense in court. So, the federal laws and the judicial system is very
biased against us. I could conceive of a time where if they came and curtailed,
they took everyone off the radio that they didn't like. They are now monitoring
the Internet, since the Patriot Act was passed.
EF - Will our government eventually made handguns illegal?
RP - If they do it and they get away with it, it means we didn't do a very good
job. Because, you know, the Saturday Night Special is a wonderful weapon.
Because they should be legalized in every household, especially the inner city.
Because, that's where the greatest amount of crime is. People who are poor and
minority, live in the city, have the least amount of protection. And, they're
getting robbed and killed. They could afford a cheap handgun, and they should be
allowed to do it.
EF - Changing lanes, here. Congressman Paul, anyone who has followed your career
knows that you are a strong proponent of the Gold Standard. The Federal Reserve
seems to have been the main vehicle for driving America from a nation of savers
to a nation of borrowers. Everywhere in America, especially with the economic
downturn of 2000 and 3 million jobs lost, American citizens are having to turn
to bankruptcy as the answer to their inability to kick the habit of credit. Now,
with our national deficit estimated at half a trillion dollars…
RP - It's seven trillion. Oh, you mean the deficit. It's at $600 billion.
EF - Do you believe that America will one day have to file a global Chapter 13?
What would that mean for us?
In our case, if the world lost confidence in the dollar, you would have interest
rates soaring, a lot of price inflation. You would have upheaval in the
financial markets. And, I think that's what's coming. It's slowly starting now.
But, I think it will accelerate, because we've been given a free ride.
Since World War II, we've been the beneficiaries of having, to be able to issue
the reserve currency. So, it's almost like us being able to issue gold. Because
we've been so rich and powerful, there's been a lot of trust in the money. But,
you can't do it forever. So, when we can't pay our debt, and when we can't
reverse this annual deficit…how government's pay that debt off is, let's say we
owe $7 trillion dollars, and over the years we have to pay it off. If you
inflate so much in the next five years that the dollar's only worth fifty cents,
you only have, you only owe, in real terms, 3.5 trillion. So, that's what we're
But, what finally happens, it becomes so rapid, everyone starts dumping the
dollar. That can be very dangerous, very chaotic, and I think it would be a
political mess, and an economic mess. But, they don't really file any papers.
Because, I think that they will always pay the paper. They wouldn't pay when
they owed it in gold. They reneged on that. They will always pay the bond
holder, and they're always going to pay the Social Security recipients. It's
just with money that's worth a lot less.
EF - I'd like to turn your attention to propaganda, and state-sanctioned mind
control. It is common knowledge that the CIA and military have conducted mind
control experimentation on American citizens. The most notorious case was
Project MK Ultra in which Goldwater sat in on the Senate Hearings against the
accused. Each time these agencies have been caught performing experiments, they
shrug it off and say the activity was done a few decades ago, and that they have
subsisted. Yet, more evidence surfaces, and we become aware that the mind
control projects went on at least until the eighties. Now, when we hear rumors
that the government has abducted children or sponsored sex slavery, we don't
want to believe it, but we must not discard it because of the government's past
history. Do you believe that members of our government are still actively
involved in individual mind control experimentation?
RP - Probably, but the tragedy is I don't know. The tragedy is that I'm in the
Congress, and even when those bills come up you can't get much information. I
would assume to some degree they are. You know, what is official and what is not
official? Some of the CIA gets caught trading drugs and financing some corrupt
regime, which they have been caught. That individual, "We don't even know who
you are, buddy." They disown you. And, that's why the CIA in particular is a
very, very dangerous organization.
Although, we made a major step in the wrong direction when this administration
made it clear that we would fight preemptive wars, even though we hadn't been
attacked. We have been doing that for a long time. But, this time it's bolder,
because they're announcing it, and saying this is policy.
The CIA's been involved in coups for years. The CIA put the Shah of Iran in
power, and that led to the radicalization of Iran. We're suffering from that
since. So, that's the heinous stuff.
They're capable of it. There's certainly been a record of it in the past, and
then they deny it. There's no easy way to solve that problem. Because, like I
say, even I, who is right there, can't get the information we should have. That
makes it an easy no vote for me, to vote against all that funding.
EF - What about mass mind manipulation. Do you think that Clear Channel and
other media outlets are intentionally trying to manipulate us?
RP - I think they're propagandists, you know, and they're propagandists for the
administration. That's pretty significant. But, uh, hopefully, we have to be
careful exactly how you define it, because what if they want to make the same
accusation against everybody on our side that resorts to radio and Internet.
"Oh, see that Internet stuff. These are bad people, and they're lying, and
they're passing this horrible propaganda." And, that's why we all have to try as
hard as we can to stick to the facts and the things that we know.
But, throughout the whole 20th Century, even before Clear Channel, the media is
owned by big business who owns the corporations who make a lot of money. They
always support the war: WWI, WWII. And they do. They control public opinion.
EF - Congressman Paul, I want to thank you for your time. I have just a couple
of more questions. These are of a more personal nature, but your fans want to
know, so I have to ask. Is there any possibility that you would run for
President again under the Libertarian or Constitution Party mantle?
Probably not. It just doesn't look like that. I think what I'm doing now, you
know I've worked hard to try and prove that you can believe in something, you
can stick to it, and vote that way, and you won't be penalized by the voters.
And, I think, at the moment that seems to be a pretty good goal. And, it's not,
it doesn't go unnoticed.
Most people in Washington think, "How did he ever get here? How does he stay?"
Yet, each time I've gotten a higher percentage, and this time, of course, I
ended up without an opponent. So, I would like to think that what I've done on
this very local level has popularized the views that we hold. And, I haven't
been penalized. And, other members of Congress notice that.
Because there are a lot of members of Congress who are more sympathetic than the
way they vote. They'd like to do better, but they don't think they can buck the
system. They know I'll buck the system, but they keep thinking that they'll get
hit. But, I think freedom is a popular idea. If you work at it you convince
them. Maybe we'll have the last laugh.
Erik Fortman is an author and musician from Central Texas.
Erik's new book, Webs of Power: Government Agencies, Secret Societies,
and Elite Legacies, is available at Amazon and book retailers. The
author is an active member of the Libertarian Party, NORML, and Gun Owners
of America. Contact:
Wes Penre is the owner of the domain
Illuminati News and the publisher of the same. Please also check
out his MySpace website:
page may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice
issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.