In this exclusive interview with Birch Gold Group, former Congressman
Ron Paul shares his opinions on a number of topics, including investing
in physical gold and silver, the future of the U.S. dollar and the role
of the Federal Reserve. Read the full transcript below, or listen to
the recorded version located below Congressman Paul’s photo
Rachel Mills for Birch Gold Group (BGG): This is Rachel Mills for Birch Gold Group. I am speaking with Ron Paul today. How are you, Ron Paul?
Ron Paul (RP): I am doing very well. Nice to talk to you Rachel.
BGG: It’s good to talk to you again, and by the way
of information for Birch’s audience, I was your last press secretary on
Capitol Hill in Congress and I worked for you for the 5 years. So I may
be cheating a little bit because a lot of your answers to my questions I
maybe have a pretty good guess at what you might say.
BGG: But, just really quick – today with you I’d
like to go over several things. But I’d like to ask your opinion on
things like Janet Yellen as the next Fed Chair, about debt ceiling and
shutdown issues. I want to get into, briefly, if you are still a buyer
of gold even though it is so “expensive”. But first I wanted to
introduce Birch Gold’s listeners to your background a little bit because
I think it’s fascinating. In 1971, Nixon closed the gold window which
led to the end of the Bretton Woods agreement. That was very important
event for you, I know for sure, because you knew at the time that it
would eventually destroy the currency, which we are still experiencing.
And you said that that was what got you into politics to begin with. Had
you been reading Austrian economists before that?
RP: Yes, for a good while. As a matter of fact, it
was 1971, there was confirmation of the Austrian economic writers who
had been predicting that would happen as early as Henry Hazlitt said
when the IMF was set up in 1945. He said it wouldn’t work and Bretton
Woods would break down. And by the 50′s and the 60′s people were
rejecting it and it was so artificial and it was fragile. So people did
know that it was coming, and mainly it was coming because the
governments pretended that the dollar would be as good as gold at $35 an
ounce forever, yet they kept printing dollars and it was pretty simple
logic to figure out there’ll be a limit. The governments worked real
hard to convince the people that there was no problem, that the dollar
would always be valued at $35 an ounce.
But finally the market overwhelmed. The politicians and Congresses,
and Central Banks can manipulate things for a while but eventually if
they are out of sync with the market, the market will overwhelm. And
even if the government won’t permit it legally to do it, it just drives
the whole system into the underground economy. So fixed exchange rates
and different things don’t work, they just hide the fact. But in 1971,
it was confirmation that everything that the Austrians were saying as
far back as the beginning of the Bretton Woods, that was true. And of
course we’ve been suffering the consequences from that ever since.
BGG: Yeah and I’ve heard people argue that the
dollar is doing well against other currencies. But I know for Austrians
and for people who understand gold, like you and me, that’s not much
solace because it’s all on a race to the bottom.
RP: Right and the ultimate measure of the value of
the currency is what it purchases, so gold is a good indicator long
term, I don’t think it’s a good indicator short term, because there are a
lot of factors, just like in the 50′s and 60′s, they were able to hold
gold at $35 an ounce when it should have been $235 an ounce! But anyway,
overall in the long term it’s what the dollar will purchase. And even
though our government tells us today there is no inflation, they are
trying to get prices to rise at at least 2% a year, yet there are some
things in our economy, the prices are soaring: the price of a bond, the
price of education, the price of medical care – all of these things are
So there is a lot of price inflation, but that’s the ultimate tests.
You can measure one currency against another, gold is a long-term
indicator. But if none of the prices were affected by printing money, it
would be no big deal. But they are and of course the major problem is
not only the price increases, it’s the malinvestment, the
overinvestment, the bubbles that form and the corrections that have to
come. That’s where the real problem is, in addition to the cost of
living going up and hurting the poor and the middle class, much more so
than it will the wealthy.
BGG: Right, which leads nicely to Janet Yellen as
the next Fed Chair, as recently has been announced. What do you think of
Janet Yellen? Do you think she’s going to solve all our problems?
RP: No, she’ll make them worse. She’s inherited a
mess, although she was a participant in the mess and she always argued
for more inflation. One thing I find a little bit interesting is that
she has a reputation for transparency. She wants to tell the markets
exactly what their decisions are early on and let the markets know what
they are doing. But if it comes true transparency, like allowing an
audit of the Federal Reserve, and letting us know who they bail out and
when they bail out and what they did in ’09 with their trillions of
dollars, and all the international transactions, there’s no way that’s
going to be permissible. Because that’s where all the power and control
is accomplished, it’s behind the scenes with the Fed on international
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Monday, September 30, 2013
A Grand Bargain for Liberty?
by Ron Paul
As I write this, it appears that the federal government is about to shut down because the House and Senate cannot agree on whether to add language defunding or delaying Obamacare to the "Continuing Resolution". Despite all the hand-wringing heard in DC, a short-term government shut down (which doesn't actually shut down the government) will not cause the country to collapse.
And the American people would benefit if Obamacare was defeated or even delayed.
Obamacare saddles the American health care system with new spending and mandates which will raise the price and lower the quality of health care. Denying funds to this program may give Congress time to replace this bill with free-market reforms that put patients and physicians back in charge of health care. Defunding the bill before it becomes implemented can spare the American people from falling under the worst effects of this law.
As heartened as we should be by the fight against Obamacare, we should be equally disheartened by the fact that so few in DC are talking about making real cuts in federal spending. Even fewer are talking about reductions in the most logical place to reduce spending: the military-industrial complex. The US military budget constitutes almost 50 percent of the total worldwide military spending. Yet to listen to some in Congress, one would think that America was one canceled multi-million dollar helicopter contract away from being left totally defenseless.
What makes this military spending impossible to justify is that is does not benefit the American people. Instead, by fomenting resentment and hatred among the world population, our costly interventionist foreign policy makes our people less safe. Thus, reducing spending on militarism would not only help balance the budget, but would enhance our security.
Yet both the House and the Senate continuing resolutions not only fail to reduce military spending, they actually authorize $20 billion more in military spending than authorized by the "sequestration" created by the 2011 Budget Control Act. Most of the supposedly "draconian" sequestration cuts are not even cuts; instead, they are "reductions in the planed rate of spending." This is where Congress increases spending but by less than originally planned—and yet they claim to cut spending.
Under sequestration, military spending increases by 18 percent instead of by 20 percent over the next ten years. Yet some so-called conservatives are so opposed to these phony cuts in military spending that they would support increased taxes and increased welfare "military" spending. This "grand bargain" would benefit the DC political class and the special interests, but it would be a disaster for the American people.
Instead of grand bargains of increased spending and taxes, those of us who support limited government and free markets should form a coalition with antiwar liberals to reduce spending on both the military industrial complex and domestic welfare programs. Instead of raising taxes on "the rich" we should also work to reduce all corporate subsidies. This "grand bargain" would truly be a win-win for the American people.
Sadly, even if a congressional coalition to cut both warfare and welfare spending was formed, it would be unlikely to carry the day as long as the Federal Reserve is willing to enable Congress's debt addiction by monetizing the debt. But this cannot last forever. At some point the Fed's policies will result in hyper-inflation and an economic crisis that will force Congress to reduce spending. Hopefully, the growing number of Americans who are awaking to the dangers of our current path can convince Congress to reduce overseas militarism and begin an orderly drawdown of the welfare state before this crisis occurs.
Labels: Texas Straight Talk
Friday, September 27, 2013
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) Joins Steve to discuss why he was part of the Cruz Obamacare filibuster.
Congressman says Republicans 'need passion' when it comes to ObamaCare
Labels: Sen. Rand Paul
Monday, May 6, 2013
"The person in charge of the State Department never read any of the cries for help, any of the pleas for help. And then her department denied these requests for enhanced security, and that I think is really a dereliction of duty and should preclude her from holding any kind of position where she'd be in that kind of authority again."
Sunday, February 17, 2013
2/17/13 - In an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) continued to press the issue of whether President Obama's nominee for CIA Director, John Brennan, believes that the President has the authority to order drone strikes on U.S. citizens on American soil, as well as on foreign soil. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace pressed Sen. Paul on his objections, asking "If we knew where an al Quaeda operative was, American or foreign, on U.S. soil, wouldn't we just go and catch him?"
"You would think," Paul replied, before delving into Brennan's response to that question.
Wallace began by asking Paul about possible judicial oversight over the drone program, but Sen. Paul quickly narrowed the topic. "What i'm asking is about drone strikes on Americans, on American soil. The president will not answer that he cannot do this, in fact he seems to be asserting that he can do this... all he'll say is he doesn't intend to do this. It is like him to saying, I don't intend to override the Second Amendment, but I might."
"I thought you were objecting to drone strikes on American citizens on foreign soil as well," Wallace interrupted. "Is that not true?"
"I'm primarily asking, the primary question is, Americans on American soil, can the President kill them with a drone strike from the program," Paul responded, later conceding that he also believes even Americans overseas should be tried for treason before being killed in drone strikes. "You should get protection for being an american citizen," he said.
The memo that outlines the legal rationale for the drone program lists, as one of the criteria for a strike, that "capture is infeasible," which Wallace seemed to be referencing when he asked Paul "If we knew where an al Quaeda operative was, American or foreign, on U.S. soil, wouldn't we just go and catch him?"
"You would think," Sen. Paul replied, "but here's Brennan's response. He says the authorization to use force in 2001 in Afghanistan has no geographical limits. So, when he says that, our first question is, gosh, he is implying he could do it in America?"
Senator Dianne Feinstein asked Brennan about just that possibility, and received the response that Sen. Paul finds so disturbing:
Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked Brennan in written follow-up questions to his Feb. 7 confirmation hearing, "Could the administration carry out drone strikes inside the United States?"
Brennan answered, "This administration has not carried out drone strikes inside the United States and has no intention of doing so."
The overlooked central problem that the drone program highlights is the problematic designation of counterterrorism as a "war," overlooked because Congress lacks the political will to do anything about it, like repealing or amending the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Chris Wallace is right, according to the memo that the administration put together, any terror suspect operating on U.S. soil would likely not meet the "capture is infeasible" bar that it sets forth, and Brennan's response supports that. However, if terrorism is a "war," if that is the operating theory, then how could anyone absolutely rule out every scenario under which such a "war" could be fought? The same "ticking time bomb" that was used to justify torture also leaves open the possibility that capture might one day be infeasible in order to prevent an attack from within the United States.
While there is lots of hand-wringing over the drone program, no one is suggesting that we no longer treat it as a war. They would all much rather slap the President's hands than tie them.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
"I think the sequester has to go through," Paul, R-Ky., told WTOP Thursday morning. "People need to realize the sequester is not really a cut in spending. It's a cut in the rate of growth of spending."
He adds that a new proposal by Senate Democrats to avoid sequestration with a mix of spending cuts and new tax revenue is a bad idea.
"Another dumb idea," said Paul, who on Tuesday delivered the tea party response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address. "They just raised taxes three months ago. Did they not get enough of a fix then? We've got to cut spending.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Sen. Rand Paul: I'll only vote for this proposal if we have annual reports that have to be approved by Congress. So each year a report comes from an independent investigator saying we are meeting X, X and X targets and that the border is secure and we are really not allowing any illegal immigration. At that point in time, I think there is room then for normalizing these folks. David Brody: But do you believe those checks should come before any probationary legal... Paul: Security has to come first. That's why I would have a year's time period where you secure the border and then I would have a report at the end of the year and then I would have a normalization process.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Rand Paul talks about what he'll talk about in his 'Tea Party' rebuttal to President Obama's State of the Union address.
February 10, 2013
February 10, 2013
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is going head to head with the TSA. He has introduced bills to privatize the agency and establish a passenger bill of rights. Senator Paul has had numerous issues with the TSA over the years. The most infamous instance was in Tennessee last year, where the Senator was detained at a checkpoint after refusing to submit to a patdown. He consequently missed his guest speaker appearance at the March for Life. One of the two bills would require airports to hire private companies of their own choosing to conduct security screenings. The other would provide travelers with a number of protections from procedures like invasive searches. So how likely are these bills to pass and what will they really change? Baruch Feigenbaum, a Transportation Policy Analyst for the Reason Foundation, joins us to break it down.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Ron Paul warns us of the impending collapse of the U.S. Dollar and the unsustainable nature of U.S. monetary policy. Once again Ben Bernanke has no real solutions and continues to take us down the road toward total economic collapse.
Labels: Ron Paul
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
Senator Rand Paul to Breitbart News's Ben Shapiro: "I think the President understands the Constitution enough to know that he would prefer a different type of constitution. [Supreme Court Justice] Ginsberg said she admired the South African Constitution. So, I think that's more of where the President is coming from. They would rather have positive rights, enumerated, that everyone has the right to water, housing, haircuts, you name it."
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Ron Paul is Leading in Iowa so CNN is trying to bring down Ron Paul , How predictable and cowardly is the mainstream media. They tried this...
November 17, 2010 C-SPAN Ron Paul "It's Time To Shrug Off The Shackles Of This Government!
Now THAT is journalism. Can you even imagine if our 'mainstream' media cared about facts and getting to the bottom of things like t...
We are living in an insane TIME, but there is one Voice that is pulling us back from the brink that that man is RON PAUL! , If it wasnt for...
Ron Paul criticized the U.S. government's efforts to shut down WikiLeaks and attack Julian Assange, and compared the murderous conseque...
Ron Paul On Rick Perry Dropping Out Of The Presidential Race ...Thank God an Good Riddance! We don't need forced inoculations and priv...
Ron Paul was barely given any time to speak in the last debate .Just imagine what it will be like when only Ron Paul and Romney are left I...
February 11, 2011 C-SPAN "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a p...
Ron Paul won a Stunning Second Place Victory in New Hampshire! Ron Paul speaks from the heart unlike all these puppet canidates that read ...
Ron Paul : Greece Riots Could come to America Congressman and Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul says the violence rocking Greece threate...