All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 26, 2011 - InfoWars Nightly News
01:03:56
20111226_Mon_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome, my friends, to another edition of InfoWars Nightly News.
I'm Alex Jones, and here we are, the day after Christmas, December 26, 2011, on this Monday edition.
Now, because it is a quasi-holiday, we're going to do something a little bit different tonight.
We're going to look back at Ron Paul.
There are literally hundreds of clips on YouTube and Google Video.
of Ron Paul on the Morton Downey Jr.
show, of Ron Paul right here in Austin, Texas, on a local AXS TV show that ran for decades that my friend Tommy Pallotta, who went on to work in Hollywood, actually worked on, where Ron Paul was running for president in 88, talking about government CIA drug dealing, government-sponsored terror, and other Issues.
And I like some of the clips from Morton Downey Jr.
because you get to see Ron Paul, when he's being attacked, jump up and get angry and show you that he was the same guy then who he is today.
A veteran, a person who supports the Bill of Rights and Constitution, a medical doctor, Somebody who was known as Dr. No in Congress, who never had co-sponsors, never had support, going back when he was first in Congress for one term in the 80s, called Dr. No, then kicked out of Congress and came back in the mid-90s.
Ron Paul is a testament to telling the truth unwaveringly and having a huge response because of his dedication.
He's 76 years old now.
He's the only person who isn't a total globalist.
In fact, he's not a globalist at all.
You look at Newt Gingrich, you look at Mitt Romney, they're a joke.
So here are some excerpts of an interview here in Austin, and of course on other shows that he appeared on, because he's the same guy he was 20 years ago, 25 years ago, 30 years ago.
And I think it's important to get this video that you're about to see out to everybody so they can really get an idea of who Ron Paul is.
And seeing him when he was a younger man is just amazing, and then to see where he's come today.
And it just makes me think about how, if I have the privilege and bless them to be alive in 25, 30 years, who knows what battles we'll be in together over that period of time.
We may actually defeat these clublists.
If people don't listen to the bought-off Christian churches that tell them it's the end of the world and go ahead and give in to tyranny because that's the way it is, people actually wake up and do the right thing.
We can certainly turn this ship around.
Don't ever forget the parable and the story of Nineveh and their hundred-year periph.
Here is excerpts of Ron Paul from more than 20 years ago.
In fact, some of these clips are more than 25 years old.
are more, more than 25 years old.
Here it is.
Let me go back to the audience.
Young man, go ahead.
You're up.
Okay.
Your solutions on stopping drug trade is give up.
Give up the war on drugs.
I say zero tolerance.
We use the military for aid.
We stop it from getting into the country.
We cut it off at a source.
Why give up in the last fight?
What we give up on is a tyrannical approach to solving a social and medical problem, and we endorse the idea of volunteerism and self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person.
It's a preposterous notion.
It never worked.
It never will.
The government can't make you a better person.
It can't make you follow good habits.
Why don't they put you on a diet?
You're a little overweight.
And I think you need better health.
I guess the most controversial stand which libertarians have now is on drugs.
You probably get a lot of criticism because you want to legalize drugs, right?
But I think the most controversial thing about the whole drug problem is zero tolerance.
That's what's controversial, this idea that we have no privacy.
There's no financial privacy or privacy in our home because the Drug Enforcement Agency can break our doors down looking for a cigarette butt.
They confiscate cars and boats and houses are bulldozed down all in the name of teaching people not to have bad habits.
They're spending 10 billion dollars.
I think it's an incredible program of failure.
So the controversy is really in the hands of the government.
Democrats and Republicans who are saying the same thing.
And each party tries to outdo the other.
And they're absolutely obsessed with this.
At the same time, they care not a lit about.
You know, our civil liberties.
The drug laws have only been here since 1914.
About that time we had the income tax, the Federal Reserve System, the FBI, licensing to protect certain industries and professions.
Then we decided we were going to tell people how to live and what their habits ought to be.
That's when they introduced the ideas of prohibition of alcohol.
Didn't work very well and so that was finally repealed.
Libertarians detest drug dealers.
That's one reason why we want to get rid of the laws.
We want to get the drug dealer out of business overnight because he can't exist unless the drug price is very high.
So a lot of good people inadvertently are the allies of the drug dealers if they like the drug laws.
The people who write those laws and like those laws inadvertently promote crime.
Every drug addict, because he has to pay these exorbitant amounts for their drugs, commit on the average 260 felonies a year to raise the money.
That would be totally unnecessary.
Who raises that kind of money to go buy a six-pack at the drugstore?
We don't have to do that because the alcohol is available.
And alcohol kills more people than drugs.
Cigarettes!
They kill 325,000 people a year.
And what are we required to do?
Subsidize the tobacco industry.
I mean, if people want to really do good, let's just quit subsidizing tobacco, get the government out of the sale of alcohol, and...
And go that way.
But the crime rate would go down, the drug dealers would be out of business, I think the kids wouldn't be as exposed either.
It's pretty hard to tell a kid that's just dropped out of a public school where he was totally bored and he's on the street corner and he decides he wants a job and buy a car.
Talk him into working at McDonald's for $4 an hour when he can make $400 a day doing a little work for the local drug merchant.
There's no way.
He's tempted, and he yields to the temptation.
So we literally set the stage by these drug laws to get more kids involved, and I think that's horrible.
I think the kids have to... they certainly deserve some protection.
We deserve at least to create an environment where they're not so likely to be forced into the drug trade.
Now, you're a medical doctor, and you think that legalizing all these drugs would be good.
Do your medical colleagues and the medical profession, they agree with this?
No, to a minority.
Matter of fact, I think that even drugs for treating oneself should be more readily available to people.
Not that I think people should do it unwisely and use a lot of fancy medication without some advice, but if drugs were more available, you know, if a nurse could prescribe penicillin, It certainly would be a lot cheaper.
Nurses are capable of telling you whether you have a strep throat or not.
It would drive the cost down.
So doctors have a little protectionism involved.
They like a little monopoly.
So the AMA... Matter of fact, the AMA lobbied me and Washington to vote against even allowing doctors to give heroin for dying cancer patients who couldn't have their pain relieved from morphine.
But they did not want this to happen because they wanted to have control.
They didn't want to look like they were soft on drugs, but they want control.
So whether it's the drugs necessary right now, the FDA I think does a horrible disservice to us all by making it very difficult for AIDS and cancer patients to do alternative treatments.
You know, they're smuggling drugs from Mexico.
You know, we think of Mexico as a socialist state, and yet they can get drugs more readily there.
And we're having dying cancer patients, AIDS patients, smuggling drugs up into the free United States in order for them to take this medicine.
But the FDA argues, well, we've got to make sure it's safe and effective.
Well, if somebody's dying, don't you think they have the right to take a chance on a drug, an experimental drug?
But the AMA isn't helpful in here, and the medical profession is very poor.
A lot of doctors would agree with me, but I think they like the idea that they're sort of God-like, and they get to write prescriptions, and they certainly think that opening up this whole barrel, so to speak, would be detrimental to their protection and their interest in organized medicine.
What about the police and law enforcement profession?
Would they be for your point of view?
It would put a lot of them out of work.
A lot of them would make a lot less money.
Their system has been corrupted by it.
Oh gosh, it's terrible.
Another example of how foolish some of these laws are is the prisons are running rampant with drugs.
If we can't keep drugs out of the prison, how are we going to keep drugs off the street?
Which means it's very much a corrupting influence.
We read stories.
I'm sure the majority of the police are not involved, but you don't need very many to really make a lot of money off it.
So there are going to be some officials who would agree with us, and I've had some.
There was an interesting story of an individual.
My staff went to work for a candidate who was running for governorship in a large city, and they brought all the district attorneys together because crime was the number one issue in that state.
And they said that the only way you could ever get rid of crime would be, and they all agreed on this, is you'd have to get rid of drug loss.
So behind closed door without the press, they agreed that drug loss created crime.
And you know what they said?
You can't ever achieve that because there are too many people on the take.
Too many judges and too many policemen like this.
So just forget about it.
We can't deal with it.
It's too much of an emotional issue anyway.
But it is an important issue.
I think the discussion has progressed a whole lot in the last six months.
I think we as libertarians have done a whole lot of good in getting this discussion out and I am going to continue to debate this because as a parent of five children and as a physician and as a non-drug user, I think that I have some credibility in making this debate on the idea that drugs ought to be decriminalized.
Let's talk about what could be the most explosive The issue of this campaign, if the mass media would get a hold of it and do something about it, but they're covering it up.
And that is the, you were talking about the government involvement in drugs.
There have been government investigations, there have been private investigations, and we've interviewed a lot of people, ex-CIA people, who have talked about the CIA involvement in drug operations for many decades.
It's public knowledge, though once again the media are not saying anything about it, that Oliver North and his people involved with the Contras have been running drug operations, cocaine primarily, bringing it back into the United States.
And there are other investigations which show that George Bush's office, Donald Gregg particularly, and the people he was working with, have been supervising an enormous drug operation Which, once again, was sending illegal arms down to the Contras and elsewhere, and bringing cocaine and other types of drugs back into the United States.
But the Democrats aren't talking about this.
Are the Libertarians talking about this?
And did they put this into the framework of the drug law situation that you're talking about?
We talk about it a whole lot.
Of course, we always have the trouble of getting the attention that we think it deserves.
There have been a few Democrats that have talked about it.
Senator Kerry's office has done some work.
He's done a lot of the investigation.
Right, and I think he's on to something, and I think we've gotten some other information too, of course, that George, or the CIA, has given Noriega over the years $200,000 a year.
Oh, yes.
And they kept feeding him money, even when Bush was the head of the CIA.
I think George Bush is deep into it, well over his head.
Somebody asked me once, If I thought George Bush knew about as much what's going on as Ronald Reagan, I think George Bush knew a lot more about what was happening in the CIA, because I think Reagan was probably more removed from it, I mean, just by his own personality and maybe his age or something.
But I think George Bush, through his office and through the fact that he was a member of this, you know, head of the CIA, I think he was very, very close to it.
He knows exactly what was happening.
I believe the rule that once a CIA member, always a CIA member, and I think it's awful interesting.
Can you imagine?
It would alarm a few of us in this country if all of a sudden we knew that the leader in the Soviet Union would be the head KGB agent, and here we take our head CIA agent and put him, you know, potentially the head of our entire country.
Unfortunately, I wish that we could get this information out, and I continue to talk about it, but I sadly believe that there will be very little said, which means that the Democrat I don't think there's any doubt about it.
Some of it got reported in the Iran-Contra scandals.
We did know that there were drugs involved and they were selling drugs back and forth.
I think that might be the number one reason for the drug laws.
I mean, they use and play on the good people of America to support them, but I think the number one reason Is not to have high prices for some 2-bit drug dealer, as much as to raise the funds necessary for governments to do illegal things, whether it's some terrorist government someplace, or whether it's our own CIA to fund programs that they can't get Congress to fund.
I think it's tragic, and the sooner we get rid of the drug laws, the sooner this would end.
The record for civil liberties for the Libertarians, to my mind, is very good.
And even, I think it was the last interview we did with the Libertarian, Candidate for President said he would abolish the CIA, the FBI, and the IRS.
Do you hold those same positions?
Yes, I do.
Because, you know, most of our history we didn't have those institutions.
The FBI came in during the First World War.
Interestingly enough, one thing that Woodrow Wilson did, he used the FBI to spy on American citizens and actually arrest them if they disagreed with his foreign policy about going to war in Europe.
Isn't it interesting how recent they used it in the Vietnam era?
Democrats used it there.
Republicans used the FBI to spy on a hundred different groups in this country, including the churches.
Who disagree with the policy in Central America.
It almost looks like the FBI was designed to spy on Americans who might be disagreeing with policy, especially the foreign policy.
So the FBI, although I don't think I can condemn everything they've ever done, because I'm sure some of the investigations and investigation of crime has been beneficial, but that could be accomplished through Justice Department within our states.
We wouldn't reject that portion of it.
I think the FBI has kept and continues to keep a lot of records on a lot of individuals.
The CIA has only been here since 1947.
Their record is lousy.
I mean, just think of the CIA used by the Democratic administration to murder Diem and escalate the war in Vietnam.
And here we have a Republican using the CIA to sell weapons to the Ayatollah, to raise funds, deal in drugs, go to Central America, fight wars that have not been approved by the people or the Congress.
So, we see the CIA as very, very detrimental, skirting the law, and here we had Casey proposing a super CIA.
He thought there was too much control over the CIA that existed, that congressmen now occasionally ask questions, and they don't ask enough.
So they were talking about a super CIA.
The CIA was used in a bad policy in Cuba.
We think that intelligence gathering is permissible to defend this country.
But up until 1947, it was done as a military operation.
If you needed to know whether there were troops massing for an invasion, that the CIA ought to know about, or we ought to know, get that information, have that intelligence.
But now in this age, especially in the modern age, I mean, we don't even need to have somebody over in Europe or in the Soviet Union We don't even need to send powers in an airplane over here.
We have satellites.
You can practically watch an individual walking around on the street with the technology available.
So I would say even modern technology has absolutely moved us into an age where we ought to become more modern and get away from this CIA operative snooping around, actually causing a lot more trouble than good.
- Does that include all these interventions and covert actions and surrogate mercenaries which we're using in Central America?
Absolutely.
We would do away with that.
But that doesn't mean that we would complacently say that we shouldn't have a national defense.
If we're concerned about the spread of communism, one of the first things we as libertarians would do Would be to stop the funding of the communists.
We're still sending money to the communists.
Increased under the Reagan administration.
It's unbelievable what we've been doing.
But if there is a threat to our national security, rather than using these secretive operatives going around and murdering and picking and choosing our personal dictators that serve our banking and business interests, It should be done through the Congress.
Congress should know about it.
It's the people's money, and it's the kids' lives that are being dealt with.
So therefore, it should be open.
If our national security is threatened, Congress ought to have a vote on it.
Never secretly, with the power of a President, to wage war.
That's a very dangerous thing to happen.
If you became President, would you abolish the Federal Reserve, or try to, since it's a constitutional question also?
And try to break the power of the banking system in the country?
We'd get rid of the Federal Reserve, but unfortunately it is a constitutional question, but it shouldn't be.
The founders were rather clear.
They authorized no central bank.
They said we could not emit bills of credit, which is paper money.
They said that only gold and silver could be legal tender, and the only monetary function that the Congress had was to mint gold and silver, coins.
So, if we'd follow the Constitution, we would not have a central bank, and we would not have a fiat paper currency.
We would have a gold or silver standard, or both.
We believe that we should have honest money, which is a commodity standard.
We don't believe in counterfeiting.
We don't believe the individual can counterfeit paper and give it to people and say, this is money of real value.
But we don't think the politician and the Federal Reserve can do that either.
We'd get rid of the Federal Reserve, and we think it would not only help the economy, what it would do is it would help the people, because the people would save their money again, prices would be lower, interest rates would be lower, and we'd eliminate the business cycle.
So, the sooner we get rid of the Federal Reserve, the better.
What would you do about the deficit, this enormous deficit that we have?
The deficit should be eliminated by one technique, cutting spending.
You can't cut spending until we decide as a people what we want from our government.
If we want welfare and warfare, the budget will never be balanced.
We're going to have an economic calamity and it's going to be very, very major.
If we want some sense to our government, we should balance the budget, we should do it immediately, and it should be done by cutting, and it should be cut both domestically and internationally.
We certainly can cut military spending, because a lot of the military spending has nothing to do with national defense.
We do not have to sacrifice defense.
I believe if we change our policy, we could have a better defense, but we would spend a lot less money, especially over overseas same way at home it's too much welfare we cut back on welfare it's too much interest on the national debt a sound currency would lower the interest payment so we would balance the budget and media at a much lower level I think it would be the greatest thing in the world for the economy you have a last statement you'd like to make for our viewers
yes I would like to suggest to the viewers that you should look at your choices I think this year you do have a choice.
I think it's foolish to waste your vote.
Voting Republican and voting Democrat is a pure waste of your vote.
So if you want to vote for less government, if you want to say you're not satisfied with the status quo, then you have to vote libertarian.
If you stay at home, which many people are doing, they're staying at home these days because they are disgusted like we are.
But they don't think there's much chance of changing things.
But if you vote Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference whatsoever.
If they like what they have, If they're satisfied with the status quo, it doesn't matter.
But if you don't want to waste your vote, if you want to make your vote productive, make your vote count, come join the Libertarians.
Vote Libertarians.
Send a message because even if we get 5 or 10 or 15 percent of the vote, we will revolutionize politics in this country for the next hundred years.
And that's what we want to do.
We want to set the stage for the 1990s when the Libertarian Party can be a predominant force in this country.
What's the libertarian solution to the farm problem?
Just free market?
Free market.
Get the government out of it.
You know, under Ronald Reagan, the subsidies in 1980 were $10 billion a year.
They've gone up to $26 billion a year and there's just as many bankruptcies as ever.
Prices are wildly fluctuating as ever.
I think it would be much better if we got rid of all the subsidies and gave the farmers steady prices and a sound dollar.
Low interest rates, prices that didn't jump all over the place, which is a reflection of the dollar's value rather than just commodity values.
Obviously, when there's a drought, prices are going to fluctuate more than others, but this whole idea that when farmers produce too much, we're supposed to subsidize them.
When there's a drought and they produce too little, we're supposed to subsidize them.
And now I hear there's an early frost coming.
Now they're going to have to be bailed out for the early frost.
First it's overproduction, and then there's a drought, and then there's an early frost.
I think the idea is wrong.
I think it's bad economics and morally.
It's wrong.
I mean, I'm having a bad year this year in medicine.
I mean, should I ask you to be taxed so that you can send me some money because I'm having a bad medical year or somebody else has a business that doesn't do well?
Sure, you can have sympathy.
If he's your friend or relative, you can help him if you want.
But to be able to coerce a non-farmer to pay him because he needs something or wants something violates all concept of rights.
Nobody can demand something and call it a right.
Everybody has a right to their life and their liberty, but they don't have a right to somebody else's property, and they can't use the government to coerce in order to get it.
Well, what about the Libertarian Party?
Can you tell us a little bit about what it stands for?
The Libertarian Party is based on a firm principle of non-aggression.
We all take a pledge when we join the party that we will never initiate force against somebody else.
That is, you know, a pretty simple principle that everybody should endorse.
It's a principle of what makes civilization, that is, you respect other people's life, you respect other people's property.
Thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not murder.
It's that simple and most everybody agrees to that.
And the next question ought to be is, well, why should you be different than Republican and Democrats if they tend to agree with that same principle?
Well, we believe it's such an important moral principle that if we can't take somebody else's property, and we can't hurt anybody, or we can't intimidate anybody, or threaten the U.S.
force, we don't think the government can either.
We see the government as the initiator, a force to bring about social and economic changes day in and day out.
I mean, they may not come up to our front door with a gun, and occasionally they do, but we know if we don't deliver our money and our records and do obediently what the government wants in order to give up our portion of our income through the Internal Revenue Service, the gun will be quickly at our door and we will be in prison.
So it's the threat and the intimidation And therefore they're transferring wealth, something that we can't do as individuals.
So we as libertarians reject this whole idea of forcible redistribution of wealth, which is the welfare state.
Same way in personal liberties.
We apply this principle in the area of personal liberties.
And although I might want you, and think you should lead a certain lifestyle, because I think it's good and right and moral, I have no right to tell you what to do.
You know, if you want to live a certain way, and I disagree, that's tough.
You know, that's your choosing.
That's the individual's choice.
As long as you don't hurt somebody else.
So the person has the right to his own life and his liberty, his own lifestyle, with one special rule.
that your lifestyle, the individual's lifestyle, can't hurt somebody else.
So if you do things that I disapprove of, I, as a libertarian, am tolerant, and I accept that up until the point of no injury to anybody else.
Now, I talk to libertarians or listen to them or view them on TV, and they're talking about government power all the time and abuse of governmental power.
But I also see some libertarians, not a whole lot of them, but a lot of them also talk about corporate power as well.
In other words, they're talking about power in general.
There seem to be two types of libertarians.
Well, I don't...
I think we have one type of libertarian because we all accept the same principle.
I think it's more easily found that you have several types of Republicans and several types of Democrats because they're interventionists and they can intervene any way they want.
But I think libertarians are pretty consistent in certainly condemning the power of government.
I haven't heard a libertarian saying that we need more government or they're not a libertarian.
But on the corporate power, I think where the confusion might come is corporate size, if it's gained by serving the consumer, is not necessarily evil.
So if you have 90% of the car industry, for some miraculous reason or for some unknown reason, there's no imports.
If you have 90% of it, that doesn't bother me as a libertarian if you have the best car at the best price and the consumers are very happy.
Now, if you have 90% or 100% of a utility company, and you're gouging the customers, and the customers have no place else to go, we detest the corporate size.
We detest corporate power when it's gained through government power.
You know, government coercion.
If it's a contract.
The military-industrial complex is a pretty good example of how large industries benefit by big government.
Of course, in banking, big banks benefit by this monetary system because they're sort of in collusion with the Federal Reserve System, so we detest that.
We detest bigness and we detest corporate power when it's gained through privilege from government.
If corporations are large, And there's always free entry in a free market.
If they're large because they serve the consumer, we don't worry too much about that because we know the consumer is benefiting.
If they get to the point, if they had 100% of an industry, which is not possible in a free market, but let's say just for instance, if they had 100%, And then they started to gouge the people.
There would immediately be competition.
There always has to be free entry and free competition.
But nobody's ever figured out where there's ever been a true monopoly in a free market system.
All monopolies can be traced to some form of government protectionism.
Some libertarians are against the public school system.
They would close down the public school system.
Do you think this is a good thing or do you believe in it?
Well, I don't think the public school system has a real good record.
I think the educational quality is very, very low and getting lower all the time.
I think that you can go to some of the big cities and you find out that the schools are drug infested and crime infested and there's violence and very little education.
More than a million kids drop out a year before they get their high school diploma.
It's an armed fortress and so we think the record is very poor so we have concern about good education and of course we want to go in the direction of privatizing all schools.
But in the very practical world of politics, I don't think it's wise for me to say that tomorrow we could have private schools.
I don't think it's likely to happen.
So we can do a whole lot, set our ideals, work toward it, and we could change a whole lot.
I think where we really have gone astray has been in this century where we have gotten, in probably the last 30 or 40 years, when we got the federal government involved.
And local governments have been involved in schools most of our history.
And I think if we had the federal government out of it, and the state governments, and schools were controlled locally, although that wouldn't be perfect libertarianism, it would be a far cry better than what we have.
But even short of doing all that, we as libertarians would really promote a little competition.
We don't like monopolies when there are government monopolies, because that's really the only monopoly you get.
But a monopoly of our school system is a great danger.
So we would immediately introduce the idea, and we think it would help the schools right off.
That is, allow tax credits or vouchers for people who want prayer in the schools.
How can we force people to have prayer in school?
You know, that's a violation of civil liberties.
But what we could do is say, if you don't like the way your kids are being taught, let's allow you to have competition.
Let's give you a tax credit or a voucher and go down the street and have the kind of school you want.
So we would want competition.
That, to me, would be a practical alternative and moving in the right direction.
I want to focus on the Federal Reserve itself for a moment in that I wonder, you know, what percentage of the people know that the Federal Reserve is not really a part of the government?
A privately owned corporation, and who owns that, you know, the Federal Reserve?
Do you have a comment on that?
Well, I think very few people understand how it works.
Because the members of Congress weren't very much aware of it.
But I think it's a little bit worse than just saying it's private.
You know, if it were just private, they'd have to live within the laws of the land of fraud, and they would have to be a public corporation, and you know, if there's a public corporation, you have a right to know what your corporation is doing if you own stock.
Here it's secret, but where do they get their power?
Is it the power of the marketplace that creates this corporation?
No.
They, in addition to being very secretive, have their authorization, their creation from government.
So the government creates them and they create a special thing.
So it's much worse than just being a private corporation.
It is a very secretive, private, government-ordained corporation that has the power to counterfeit money.
So it's very, very unique and much worse than just being private.
It's the secrecy of it and the power that it gets through government legislation that makes it so evil.
Now, you were the ranking Republican on the House Banking Committee for a while.
On one of the subcommittees, but not on the entire committee.
And do I understand correctly that members of Congress can't even go to the Fed meetings?
That's right, I was very interested in the issue and I was on three subcommittees, two being on Coinington Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee, but I could not go to a meeting, I couldn't get an audit, I couldn't even check the books, and they're the ones who create the money.
Yet I felt like I was elected to be responsible to the people and I would be inquisitive in looking into these things.
Their attitude is When you need to know or when the people need to know, we'll tell you.
They're in charge and we're just on the outside looking in rather than the people being in charge of the government sending me or somebody else as their congressman to control the bureaucrats.
Let's turn it upside down.
They have control and they allow us to know what they think we should know.
Now, what does the Federal Reserve System actually do?
So many people say, you know, I see this and the Federal Reserve, I don't know what the Federal Reserve Bank does, and why is it so significant?
Well, it does several things.
One of the benign things it does, and in some ways efficiently, and that is they exchange checks.
You know, they're an exchange bureau, but that could be done very easily privately.
The real evil that they do is they create money in credit.
If the federal government runs up a debt, and they tend to have a habit of doing this.
Congress is run by Republicans and Democrats.
They all spend money.
They run up the debt.
Of course, when they spend, they have to tax this.
If they can't tax enough, then they have to borrow.
And if they can't borrow enough, then they have one other option.
They can tax and borrow.
Inflate.
Inflate.
The most important thing to remember is inflating is not the prices.
The prices go up after the money is inflated and the money loses its value.
So the Fed is designed to accommodate the politician in a very secretive manner.
The politicians spend the money.
Because the special interest is going to say, we want this, we want this.
The politician gets re-elected, so he's rewarded.
And the tax becomes an indirect tax.
Instead of going directly to the people, what the Federal Reserve does, is they can take a Treasury bill, accept the Treasury bill, which now is just a mere computer entry.
They accept the Treasury bill of $10 billion.
And they give Treasury $10 billion in their checking accounts.
Where did the Federal Reserve get the money?
Right out of thin air, right from heaven.
They create the money, they put it in a checking account, and the treasury spends it.
And then that means that the people who got that money immediately get to spend it, and it has value.
But as it circulates in the economy, the value of the purchasing power of the money goes down, and you have prices going up.
The bad part about this is not everybody suffers equally.
If the money supply went up 10%, and every one of us had the cost of living go up identically 10%, It wouldn't be nearly the great harm, but because of the system, it's designed literally to benefit the politicians and the bankers and big corporations, those who get the money.
They get the money, they get the benefit, and then somebody else, in a year or two or three, suffers the consequences.
We read about the Federal Reserve as a banker's bank, and we see them that they raise the discount rate, or they increase the money supply.
What do all these things mean?
Well, the Bankers Bank means literally that the bankers are required to put their deposits in the Federal Reserve System, and they're accountable to the Federal Reserve System.
They have to send in the reports to the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve has all these regulations and rules, so they control the whole entire banking system.
In their efforts to fine-tune, although they literally destroy the money, they don't want to destroy the money.
They want to control things so when inflation gets perking along, They're aware of the same economic thoughts that I'm aware of.
And they know that if they're not a little bit cautious about this, they could have, you know, runaway inflation.
So they tend to back off.
But they benefit from the backing off.
That means they tighten the credit, raise the interest rates, and cause a recession.
And they do it in the name of saving the economy, which they have to, or the currency gets out of control.
But if they know it's coming, then they benefit on it too.
Then they benefit.
They know then to be in cash and earn high interest rates, and the banks benefit by it.
So they, whether the economy is going up or down, if they're designing the policy, they can catch the swing.
So it's the inside information that they have.
But if they didn't give the recessions, which are literally the results of the inflation, the system would crumble much faster.
But our argument, as hard money people, is that in spite of their arrogance, to think that they can keep this going forever, and as powerful as they are, the market is more powerful.
See, for decades they kept the gold price at $35 an ounce.
They said, we will regulate the price of gold.
But they kept printing the money.
The market finally broke down the price of gold.
Well, the marketplace will finally win out, and the people will wake up and say, it's all paper, it's all a scam.
And that's when there's chaos, and that's when the bankers realize they're getting out of control, and that's when the connection of the bankers to the politicians is critical, because then power is threatened.
So that's when they come down with political controls of our lives.
That's why the emergency powers are already written.
The President can declare an emergency and take over the industries and take over our lives and confiscate the gold.
And that's why we should be concerned.
We should be concerned for, you know, our prosperity.
You know, our standard of living and all.
But our greatest concern ought to be that when these crises come and the market disrupts this political system and this monetary system, then we're threatened by political power taking away more of our personal liberties.
Are this the FEMA regulations that you're talking about?
Yes, it's done under the FEMA, the emergency powers, and it came up even in the CONFRA hearings that there were emergency powers written.
As a matter of fact, that great hero Oliver North was in participating in designing some of these to literally If necessary, suspend the Constitution.
These are the kind of things they're talking about.
I don't know if you recall... Set up concentration camps.
This was brought up in the Iran-Contra hearings, remember?
They immediately suppress it, and they say, this is something we can't discuss nationally.
The people aren't allowed to know about this.
That's why, who protected this information?
Who protected all over North?
The head Democrat.
Which goes to show you the power structure is the same.
John, you made a big study of the history of the Federal Reserve.
How did it come about?
Well, it's a murky story, and I think that maybe 1913 ought to be the year that went down in infamy in American history, because not only did we get, just barely in 1913, the Federal Reserve, we also got the income tax in that very same year, and those two things have worked to our... really been a very negative thing in our society and in our economy ever since that time, but it was a very secretive thing.
It really goes back to the bankers getting in a sealed railway car and sneaking off to Jekyll Island, Georgia.
And it was a very secret meeting.
In fact, they called it the First Name Club.
They only called each other by their first names so that even people who worked there as waiters and servants and so forth later couldn't identify for sure who had even participated in that meeting.
It was only about four or five people, wasn't it?
Well, it was about ten, I believe, or twelve.
And that group of people literally laid the basis for what became the Federal Reserve.
Basically, Rockefeller, Morgan people?
That group, you probably know something in that area.
The Hood House was involved there, Woodrow Wilson people were there, although this occurred I believe in 1910 or so when they met at Jekyll Island.
That's right, it was a couple of years later.
By the time it got planned, it was finally passed in 1913.
It was kind of sneaked through Congress, and Wilson actually signed that into law, the Federal Reserve Act, like two days before Christmas.
And when many of the senators and congressmen, of course with transportation in 1913 being what it was, they had long since left the nation's capital, many of them, but the ones that they wanted to stay and vote did stay and vote.
Wilson signed the law two days before Christmas, and traditionally hasn't that been a period whereby gentlemen's agreement that important legislation is not enacted right around the Christmas holidays?
It may be a gentlemen's agreement, but that's generally the time that I was always most vigilant because I realized that's when most of the garbage would be.
The more onerous.
You know, on the last day of the session, it's unbelievable.
Stacks and stacks of pieces of legislation come in and nobody reads anything.
So the worst things happen at that particular time.
But it is supposed to be that if the members aren't attending that they wouldn't be doing these kind of things.
But you're absolutely right.
There was a very low attendance.
And it was an unusual year because generally Congress didn't meet that late in the year.
And I don't know whether they were called back into session or what, but it was unusual for Congress back in those days.
Now it's very common to meet all year round.
Back then they were usually only in session two or three months of the year.
But here they were in session in December.
Very unusual year.
Of course now we talk about the government and corporations but as you've said up at the top they're all the same people the corporate executives go to and from the government they hold positions in the government the people from the trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers and all they're all corporate people and they have their relationships and interlocks with the banks and with universities and foundations
and all that so So to talk about one, you're really talking about one source of power instead of corporation on one side and government on the other, because it's all one pot, as you said.
I think it's become one pot, knowing that is, you don't have any help by say voting For a Democrat who may be a little more critical of large corporations.
But we know Democrats are just as much in bed with big government, too.
I mean, you take a Michael Dukakis, for instance.
Do you think maybe Boston was somewhat dependent on some military contracts with Tip O'Neill?
I mean, they're just as much.
It's all demagoguery when it comes to these political campaigns.
So, either side, the same people control it.
You know, Ronald Reagan spoke sharply against the Trilateral Commission, but he was the first president to host the Trilateral Commission in the White House.
I mean, that's how blatant it is.
It's the same group of people.
That's why you find no political action committee, no large corporation who supports libertarians.
I voted, while in Congress, I think the strictest free market set of votes ever.
But I never got political action committee money.
But small business people who want to compete against big business, they're free market people and they're much more likely to be libertarians and believe in the principles of free enterprise.
But once the corporations get real large, they're more interested in paying a couple hundred thousand dollars for a top lobbyist who knows the system, who can get a regulation that exempts their corporation or gets their contract in place And this is the way the system works.
So we reward the lobbyists and the political action committees much more so than we reward a principle of freedom.
What about this Banking and Currency Committee?
And we've had Congressman Gonzales saw him.
He was one of your colleagues.
And he sees the world very clearly and sees the power structures at work.
And I'm sure you have a clear picture of this also.
Is this one of the reasons you became a Libertarian instead of a Republican?
Well, it's certainly one of the reasons why I got involved in politics because I was very fascinated with economics and particularly monetary policy.
And if you think about it, money is pretty important.
If you look at all transactions, whether you're buying something or selling your services, One half of all economic transactions is the monetary unit.
So if somebody has control over the value of the monetary unit, they control every transaction.
Therefore, if you have an institution, such as a government-ordained bank, like a central bank, like our Federal Reserve, if they have absolute monopoly control over the value of that currency, they control everything in the economy.
It becomes A form of a government regulated economy.
It doesn't become socialism, but the money obviously is socialistic and the government controls it.
So if they increase the supply, the value goes down.
If they tighten the supply, interest rates go up.
So it's tremendous economic power.
And the insiders, those who know what the policy is, literally can benefit.
They don't stuff their pockets and line their pockets with cash.
That's not the way it happens.
But those who are in the inside and knowledgeable will benefit because they know which direction interest rates are going and which way the economy is going.
And if you look at the members of the Federal Reserve, you find out that they don't ask people like me to be on the Federal Reserve, even though I've had experience on studying the issue and been on the banking committee.
They ask only the people who are casually referred to as the insiders.
Those from Wall Street and the banking industry.
The Paul Volckers and the Alan Greenspan's of the world.
They're on the inside.
They know how to deal with the establishment and they get these positions.
And therefore, it is a tremendous amount of economic power falls into the hands of what we call the Open Market Committee, the Federal Open Market Committee.
They control from day to day the supply of money.
They become the legal counterfeiters.
You know, if you and I had control of the printing press, we could do a lot of things, you know, self-serving.
That's what happens when the politicians create the central bank that control the money.
Now, this control of the central bank and the money goes on regardless of which party is in power, right?
It never changes.
You know, they change a person here and there, but it's always the insiders.
It's always from the same group.
So if you have a Republican as president or the Democrats, they're going to get the same appointments.
Appointments never change.
This can be said About the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board members.
They all come from the same group.
And even though, I guess naively, I was hopeful that the same group of individuals would not have as much power under Ronald Reagan.
But, you know, I was there.
I witnessed it.
And, of course, that led to my disenchantment, my disappointment, enough to the point where I just said, I've had enough.
and then I left the Republican Party and joined the Libertarian Party with the idea that you cannot trust Republicans to be independent of the system either, although Ronald Reagan led us to believe that he would be independent. - All right. although Ronald Reagan led us to believe that he would I would like to come to the Libertarian presidential candidate.
Yes, I think we deserve a minute on what you indicated.
You said that the Libertarians in charge of it would be no America.
Clearly, let me challenge some of you who may be even leaning towards a conservative philosophy.
Ask me why we still finance the communists.
Ask me why 70% of the military budget is spent overseas.
Ask me why the good airplanes are overseas and the lousy airplanes are not here.
The lousy airplanes are in the Air National Guard.
I would say clean out the State Department.
Spend more money on our national defense.
Have an anti-communist policy.
Don't sign these treaties with the Soviets.
Don't extend loans with the Soviet Union.
And not to fight these wars with the funds raised from the illegal drugs.
So under the libertarian society, no, we don't fight the Vietnam Wars.
We don't fight the Korean Wars.
We fight wars to defend the American machines.
We fight wars to defend the American machines.
We fight wars!
We fight wars!
You excuse me!
Yes, we get wars!
We get high, Mark.
We get high on the ideas.
Go team yourselves.
Just say no!
Assume the responsibility of yourself.
Don't assume the government.
I think I detect his voice changing.
Maybe his cojones are getting stuck.
You are living in a pipe dream.
You don't know anything about what goes on out in the streets.
I'm a drug counselor.
I see people every day who have lived their lives with drugs.
Who do you know that's on drugs?
No, you are the failure, my man!
You are the failure, my man!
Because you are putting your age to the art in a glass-enclosed office, making decisions.
Let the other man come up.
Let everyone have a shot.
Come on.
Everyone gets a shot.
Come on up here, pal.
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
This, uh, this woman is calling, uh, a libertarian someone who's for economic and personal liberty in India.
This woman's for alcohol prohibition.
She wants to bring back alcohol prohibition.
She wants all the problems associated with alcohol prohibition back again.
Does she believe in the Constitution?
I don't think she does.
I mean, we haven't heard from the current drug policy.
I'm tired of all of you pro-legalization drug people hiding behind the Constitution.
I like the Constitution!
What makes you think you're the only ones that own the Constitution?
Let me read it!
Where did you read it?
Come on!
*crowd cheers* I'll address the crime issue.
I'll address the crime issue.
I'm somebody who has a father who was a junkie who has a sister who was a junkie.
I'm somebody who lives on 9th Street and Avenue C. I have gone into crack houses and everything else with baseball bats.
I've run out of murderers and rapists and thieves.
And I'm here to tell you coming off the streets The only reason these murderers, rapists, and thieves exist is because these legalizing people allow the Gambino's and the Gotti's to sell drugs and they don't allow it to be sold by the Lilly Corporation and by the people of America.
The blood of American children are all under it.
I got three quick questions.
Three?
Okay.
I want to say something.
I hear things from the prohibitionists that make some sense.
I hear things from the legalizers that make some sense.
I'm kind of in the middle of the road, believe it or not.
But I got four questions.
Number one, zero tolerance.
On zero tolerance, the President's AIDS Commission just called for civil rights guarantees for the two high-risk groups, gays and drug users.
How are we going to get treatment for AIDS?
How are we going to get education for AIDS to drug users if we drive them underground with zero tolerance?
Second question.
For Rangel.
Rangel, after the Iran-Contra hearings last year, he's still on the telephone, said there was no crime for cocaine.
I want to know who he was covering up for.
Third!
Come on, Ron.
This is 18!
Come on, you've got three minutes!
Now, wait a minute!
Now, wait a minute!
You should read!
Come on, Ron!
Thank you very much!
Instead of legalizing, how about educating?
How do you educate?
How do you educate a youth in the ghetto when they know that they can make thousands of dollars a week without getting an education?
You let them know and if they feel it, punish them!
Punish them, right!
I'm just glad that Curtis Lee is losing his voice in his big mouth in Los Angeles.
One gang member might still be alive.
How does it feel to have a husband run on his head?
Does it excite you?
Is that what gets you?
- I'm not here for the type of confrontation that you're involved in, sir.
But you've had quite a few minutes up here to say your thing.
I only have a couple of seconds to make a total point.
Would you reciprocate and allow me the time?
Okay.
Lookit.
You'd be a great PR man for Noriega.
Okay?
You're a great PR man for the drug dealer.
Okay.
Let me tell you something, my friend.
It's war, but it stands for we are responsible.
All of us.
If we don't reach down to the kindergarten, we're gonna lose out.
This thing right here, NNAD, No No's Against Drugs.
It's a program geared primarily down to kindergarten.
We do it through music, a cartoon character called Little Don't Know, the drug fighter.
No one else in the United States is giving us a hand.
Oh, that's good.
We've got a race car that stands number two in the United States, No No's Against Drugs.
Good.
The guy is now the world record holder in competition eliminators.
We've been sponsored by the Masons.
The United Way, the Boys Club, the Knights of Columbus!
You're absolutely right!
That's right!
Well, let me finish!
Let me finish my thing!
So that the kids don't get involved!
Let me finish my thing!
Let's come back in just a second, alright?
Stand by.
There is a great push now for some type of national health service.
National health care.
The United States is the only Western capitalist country outside of South Africa, if you consider that an advanced Western capitalist country.
Which doesn't have some type of comprehensive health care system.
Are the Libertarians for this or are they against it?
We're for a comprehensive health care system and we want everybody to have major medical coverage and the best insurance and the best medical care.
That's why medical care has to be delivered by the free market.
If we don't care about medical care and quality, if we like lines and if you like the medical care the Indians get, And if you're happy with the Veterans Hospital, and if you're happy with how England runs things in the Soviet Union, then I guess we need another move in the direction of socialized medicine.
Government now, even though we don't have a major national program, government now delivers 60% of the health care in this country.
The more we spend, the higher the cost, the lower the quality, the less people who get the care.
I mean, it's a lousy delivery system.
Poor people who can buy their TVs and cars and videocassette recorders have no health care.
They buy the VCRs and the televisions and the cars in the marketplace.
They get their health care through government programs.
With all this spending, there are still 38 million people who have no insurance whatsoever.
Just devising another government program, which won't work, but just further push up costs and put controls and more doctors dropping out, and I think it's a total disaster.
If it's a national health program run by the government, it's tragic.
It won't work.
It's going to ruin the care in the country.
If we care about people, we will have a national health care program that will be delivered by the free market.
But the free market is what we have now.
We have bad health care.
We have a greater percentage of GMP being spent on health care than those places, than those countries where they have the government sponsored.
See, I don't agree.
I don't think that we have free market medicine.
As I said, 60% is paid by government.
We have coercive rules that force governments into these HMO organizations.
You know, the large companies had to offer these things, so they've been growing and now going bankrupt.
And when you pump a lot of money in, if government's paying the bills through Medicare or Medicaid, this doesn't spread the money out.
A lot of wealthy people get the benefits.
The poor people don't seem to Get through the maze of papers.
But a lot of millionaires receive Medicare benefits, so they get their hospital payments.
But when they go in and pay and have a little insurance, what happens?
The hospitals and the doctors and the labs tend to jack up the prices.
And then the government has to come in and say, well, we're going to put on controls.
Because the prices are too high and then we're going to ration care.
So one problem leads to the next.
But the problems you see today are a result of 50 years of ever increasing government intervention in medicine.
The government doesn't pay for 60% of our automobiles.
You know, but they pay for 60% of our medical care.
The automobile prices are high, but they're not as high proportionally speaking.
Cost of automobiles is going up at the rate of about 4 or 5% a year.
The cost of medical care is going up about 15 or 20%.
Governments in education, they're in college education, always subsidizing college education.
Always the guy that doesn't get to go to college has to subsidize the guy that gets to go.
Where do you stand on the right to lifers?
Are those folks like you?
As soon as you get government involved, quality does not go up, but the cost goes up, and there's not any fair distribution.
Where do you stand on the right-to-lifers?
Do those folks like you, the anti-abortion people like the libertarians?
It's mixed.
They like me.
Because I am a right-to-life libertarian.
I believe killing a fetus is an act of aggression.
I've been forced to be in a room, unfortunately, when I saw a three-pound fetus, an infant, taken out, breathing and crying, and thrown in a bucket.
I mean, I take my pledge seriously.
I mean, that to me looks like an act of aggression.
Besides, if I give the wrong medication as a physician to a mother and I damage the fetus, the fetus, when it's born, can sue me.
Obviously, it was legal, alive and human, or it wouldn't be able to sue me.
I know the fetus determines its inheritance rights at the time of conception.
So, I'm in disagreement with our platform, but there were enough libertarians who agree with my position that I won on the first ballot at our convention.
The truth is, it's a difficult issue, and nobody likes to think about it, because the way the law states now under Roe vs. Wade, the fetus runs second before birth at the weight of nine pounds, still has no legal rights, and nobody enjoys defending that position.
Very difficult, because I as a libertarian, I don't like to interfere with the privacy of a woman either.
But how are we going to deal with this?
I think we have to have respect for human life or we can't have respect for individual liberty and the right to smoke a cigarette.
So you think the government has the right to force a woman to carry a fetus full term then?
I think the government has the right to protect life.
It's sort of like saying, if the baby's born and the IQ is 65 and they want it 100, does the government have the right to force that person not to kill their baby?
Yes, I do think so.
I think the government has a right to protect life.
But the government doesn't have the right to force anything.
So, it is difficult, obviously.
But I think the bottom line is, is killing a fetus an act of aggression.
And the only way the Libertarians or others who disagree with me on that, they would have to say that, no, it's obviously an act of aggression, there's no debate there.
It's that the fetus is not a person.
The fetus is not alive and it's not human.
And I, as a physician, have a lot of trouble with that.
I mean, I know it's alive, I know it's human, I know it's legal.
So, this is very unique.
I don't advocate any federal laws.
Libertarians nor this system that we have advocated as federal laws to deal with theft or murder or anything.
It's all handled by the states.
So, I think that the states would handle it differently.
I think courts would handle it differently.
I think juries would handle it differently.
I think under my ideal situation we wouldn't have people having abortion on demand and using it as birth control and having a callous, careless attitude about life.
And instead of having less illegitimate pregnancies or births, illegitimate or unwanted pregnancies, now it actually, it was intended to help difficult situations.
But what it has done is that the teenager sometimes can have three abortions in a year, which is sad and a tragedy, and I've seen tragedies, I've witnessed them, and I have great empathy for them, but I also have great respect for the principles of freedom, and I don't want to infringe or compromise my concept of what liberty is.
What you've seen is just a small smattering of vintage Ron Paul.
We're very busy here in this operation, and just kind of grabbed randomly a few things to show you here.
It's all just as amazing.
Just go to Google and type in Ron Paul, the 1980s Ron Paul, an old TV show, and it is so much of it.
Like last weekend, probably six, seven hours up late at night after the family was asleep, just watching all these and finding hundreds of clips.
So this is just a small snapshot.
Some of these interviews I'd seen 15, 16 years ago when I was first on AXS TV, because a lot of these were shot right here in Austin.
And so I salute the patriots of old for what they've done.
It's on their shoulders that we stand.
So that's it for this December 26, 2011 edition of InfoWars Nightly News.
We'll be back tomorrow, right here, not with a taped show, but with a fresh show produced just hours before we air it.
So please spread the word about PrisonPlanet.tv and don't forget, you can subscribe and get a 15-day free trial of the year or the monthly, or you can get 44% off and get a really big discount if you go ahead and sign up for a year.
And you can also share your Pasco with a few of your friends and family and get them to check out the site.
And those of you that are subscribers at PrisonPlanet.tv, we do put this out for free a few days later everywhere.
So we're actually financing the waking up of others and funding this truly alternative media operation that is starting to supplant the mainstream dinosaur globalist media to the point that we're openly calling for censorship and control now.
Alright ladies and gentlemen, that's it for this edition of InfoWars Nightly News.
▲
Export Selection