A constitutionalist speaks out: Congressman Ron Paul shares his thoughts on the proposed North American Union, the Iraq War, illegal immigration, and his potential run for the White House in 2008.

Dr. Ron Paul, a physician specializing in obstetrics/gynecology, first served in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s before voluntarily relinquishing his House seat to return to his medical practice. He returned to Congress in 1997, where he represents the 14th District of Texas, a section of the Gulf Coast.

Ron Paul consistently earns 100 percent ratings in this magazine's biannual "Conservative Index," which rates all members of Congress based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. Paul, who is now exploring running for president as a Republican, formed a presidential exploratory committee earlier this year.

THE NEW AMERICAN: What are the issues that will be the basis of your candidacy?

Representative Ron Paul: As far as I'm concerned, there's really only one big issue, and that is the enormous size of government. The size of government is the other side of the coin when considering our individual freedoms. Our government keeps getting larger and our individual liberties are steadily diminished. I think we have lost our way completely and totally and have failed to adhere to the Constitution, a document that was written to restrain government, not the people. If you look at what's happening, especially over the last decade, we are restraining the people and allowing the government leaders to do whatever they want. This development has been particularly bad since 9/11.

TNA: Do you have a catchphrase or a sound bite that you hope will attract voters?

Rep. Paul: I like to use the terms "intervention versus non-intervention." Should the government intervene in your life and continuously meddle in your private life, your religious life, or whatever? This distinction can be applied in three areas: the economy, personal liberties, and relationships with other countries. It's intervention versus non-intervention. In a free society, the government is supposed to protect our freedoms and our property, not the opposite. They are always intervening and undermining our property rights and undermining our free choices. Isn't it ironic that those people who call themselves "pro-choice" are the very ones who take choices away from us?

TNA: Here in Congress, there are signs in front of the offices of several "Blue-Dog Democrats" pointing out that the national debt is now $8.7 trillion, with $27,000 the share for every citizen. Knowing that this is a strong concern of yours, have you made any alliances with these newly elected--and seemingly conservative--Democrats?

Rep. Paul: Not as a group although there are times when we vote together. I probably have more allies regarding foreign policy among the Democrats because Republicans have been so determined to do whatever President Bush has told them to do. This may change after the last election results. Some in the GOP are now getting a little bit stronger and are willing to oppose the Bush agenda. But isn't it ironic that the so-called conservative Democrats are preaching the doctrine of watching the size of the national debt, while Republicans are insisting what the "supply siders" taught, that deficits don't matter?

TNA: Colorado's Tom Tancredo is also a Republican candidate and you and he see alike on many issues. Will it be you and him versus a mob of other Republicans?

Rep. Paul: In many ways, Tom Tancredo and I won't be campaigning against each other. I foresee us coming together. He has a caucus on immigration, and I belong to it. I have the Liberty Caucus, and he belongs to my caucus. Our views aren't exactly alike but close. He places more emphasis on the immigration problem at our southern border--and I heartily endorsed what he has said and done to correct this problem. I emphasize more the larger issue of national sovereignty, the United Nations, and NAFTA-type pacts.

TNA: Should we be worried about the condition of the U.S. dollar?

Rep. Paul: The markets don't worry too much. Some hard-money advocates keep predicting that the dollar is going to collapse. But while its value goes down, it doesn't collapse. This gives us more time to be prepared and to take corrective action. The way currencies work is that their value is based a lot on perception, at least in the short run. If the dollar is perceived to be strong, backed up by our economy and our armies, people will still trust it. Throughout the world, it's still active as a reserve currency. This perception of strength has given us a real gift. In effect, we've been given permission to "print gold." People accept the dollar as if it were gold. We get to print it, so it's a free ride for us except that this mechanism has contributed significantly to the exportation of our manufacturing base. There's no sense in us building plants and producing goods if we don't have to create wealth--which is productivity. Instead, we just produce paper money. So why not go abroad and get cheap labor and less expensive goods? There's only one problem: the accumulation of debt.

TNA: Are you concerned about Japan and China holding so much of our nation's indebtedness?

Rep. Paul: Yes. The reason I'm concerned is because of the imbalance. I think right now we are at a relative ad vantage because they don't have much desire to destroy the dollar--because they hold so many of them. But there will come a day when--either for international political reasons convincing them they no longer want to be accommodating or because the markets will just become overwhelmed and somebody will start a precipitous run on the dollar--they, too, will have to have to get out of holding dollars. It's the imbalance that's the risky part.

TNA: What is the sentiment in Congress about plans to merge our nation into a North American Union?

Rep. Paul: This issue is hardly on the radar screen up here. Its promoters want to keep it quiet. Fortunately, there are groups like the John Birch Society and others that have brought this to the attention of a lot of people. It has become an issue on some talk shows and there were even some elections last November where the subject came up. Interestingly, there were some Democrats who pushed Republicans on it in Texas and in Kansas. Some Democrats actually beat some Republicans, using this topic as an issue. It is growing interest, and once the people hear about planned highway, eminent domain land takings, how much environmental impact there will be, how much in tax dollars will be spent, and what it's going to do to our national sovereignty, there will be more in Congress looking into the issue.

TNA: You've looked into the claims about President Bush's Security and Prosperity Partnership among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, which is being developed into a North American Union. You're certainly opposed to further participation in these endeavors, but can you expand a bit on what you see happening?

Rep. Paul: There's not a lot of talk about it here in Congress. There has been some funding slipped in for the creation of the Trans-Texas Corridor, [an early segment of what's called the NAFTA Superhighway running from Mexico to Canada]. But even that was never debated because it was buried in a transportation bill. Still, it was funding that Congress did approve. But generally, this whole project is being promoted outside of Congress. Since March 2005, when the leaders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico met in Waco, Texas, to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership, it's been obvious that these plans definitely exist. I recently saw on C-SPAN that someone from the administration was trying to downplay the whole scheme and, when he got some tough questions, he said he would have to defer to the Transportation Department.

TNA: Will you reintroduce H.R. 1146 calling for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations?

Rep. Paul: Yes, I will. Getting out of the United Nations is extremely important. [On February 16, after this interview took place, Rep. Paul reintroduced this bill in the House. It has been given the same bill number as before, H.R. 1146.--Editor]

TNA: Does anyone in the Congress other than you point to the fact that the war in Iraq was "authorized" by UN Security Council resolutions?

Rep. Paul: No, the members don't pay any attention to that even though I talk about it all the time. I tell colleagues that the president offered two reasons to justify our giving him unconstitutional power to invade Iraq. The first was that Saddam Hussein was a threat to our national security because of his great military might, his possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and his weapons of mass destruction. That reason has been shown to be no reason at all. And the other justification was that the United States had to enforce UN resolutions. In a way, President Bush has unilaterally decided that we have to save the UN by enforcing its resolutions.

TNA: Mr. Bush's reputation is that he has been tough with the UN. How do you respond to that?

Rep. Paul: There's a bit of irony and stupidity in this because he's out there trying to save both the image of the UN and his own image while, at the same time, the UN didn't give him the last-minute stamp of approval to do what he intended to do. Ultimately, I think the neoconservatives who criticize the UN are very strongly in favor of the world body--as long as they're in charge of controlling it. They're not anti-UN; they just want the UN to promote the neocon vision.

TNA: When the House International Relations Committee met in early October 2002, a full five months before the invasion of Iraq, you offered a very interesting motion. Can you recall what happened?

Rep. Paul: Yes. I knew that the administration was moving toward initiating military action, so I moved that Congress declare war against Iraq, and I indicated that I intended to vote against my own measure because I didn't think we should start such a war. I made the motion because I don't like the idea of ignoring the Constitution that grants power only to Congress to send the nation into war. Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) responded to what I offered by saying, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. We are saying to the president, use your judgment. [What you have proposed is] inappropriate, anachronistic; it isn't done any more." And so we went to war once again without a congressional declaration. And the war power possessed by Congress alone was ignored.

TNA: What should our nation do regarding Iraq?

Rep. Paul: Bring the troops home. I would just leave. I look at the situation like a physician treating a patient. If I make a wrong diagnosis, give the wrong prescription, refuse to admit my mistake, and continue to give more and more of the same medicine, the patient will die. Similarly, if we make a mistake, it has to be admitted and the course has to be changed. I think invading Iraq was a serious mistake and the sooner we leave, the better.

TNA: How do you respond to accusations that you don't support the troops?

Rep. Paul: My recommendation doesn't have anything to do with lack of support for the troops. When people accuse me of not being patriotic and not supporting the troops because I want them to come home, I say that if they had followed my advice from the outset, there would be 3,100 Americans still alive, and more than 22,000 not injured. Also, this idea that says if we don't vote for the funds to continue the war, the forces in Iraq all of a sudden won't have bullets is crazy because there are hundreds of billions of dollars in the pipeline they can use. Cliches about the need to support the troops are designed to distract the American people from realizing the failure of the administration's policies.

TNA: Do you think a draft is possible?

Rep. Paul: Right now, I don't see any support in Congress for a draft but it's always a threat. The administration isn't backing away from confronting Iran. We've just inserted our nation into Somalia. There's no indication of any intention to back away from creating an American empire. We haven't taken our troops out of Europe. So the president and his team are going to run out of personnel pretty soon, and they may turn to Congress to reinstate drafting Americans. If there's some type of incident that they will blame on Iran, we could see a Gulf of Tonkin-type resolution to expand the war and start the draft again. The president has issued some sharp rhetoric towards Iran and Syria. The accusation that Iran may have weapons of mass destruction sounds very familiar. Recent moves indicate a likelihood that there may soon be a wider conflict in the Middle East.

TNA: What can we do about our dependence on foreign suppliers--including those in the Middle East--for vital supplies of oil?

Rep. Paul: Just deregulate. We have plenty of oil in the ground in Alaska and in offshore locales. We should go after it, but federal regulations prohibiting oil companies from doing so keep us dependent on others. Think also what a full-fledged nuclear power operation would do to relieve hydrocarbon needs. We could create a lot of electricity with nuclear power and, who knows, it might be an advantage to have half our automobiles plugged in every night. But even building nuclear power plants faces obstacles.

Yet, even some of the "greenies" are coming around. I was talking to a member who is very sympathetic to the environmentalists, and he's beginning to think that nuclear power isn't such a bad idea after all, and that even when you have nuclear waste, it is so small in volume that it doesn't have to be disposed of in one central location. There's a nuclear power plant in my district, and I've seen the stored waste that they're keeping until there's a national waste disposal site. I've seen the pit where the waste is kept and it's not very large. No one should get hysterical about disposing of nuclear waste.

TNA: With the Democratic Party now in control of Congress, what do you foresee for the immediate future?

Rep. Paul: The first thing is that there are probably some advantages because the Democrats will exercise more oversight over this administration. What they do, of course, will likely be more politically than philosophically motivated. But a little division that amounts to a little Contest for power is not unwelcome for those of us who believe in limited government. Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have an agenda and her rhetoric will be very annoying, but I'm not sure that the Democrats can advance anything more harmful than Republicans have done in recent memory. The conservative base will be rallied because of the Democratic takeover. And some Republicans may even develop some backbone.

TNA: Will the Democrats pass an amnesty measure for the illegal immigrants?

Rep. Paul: That's one thing that may result with Pelosi leading the House, the Democrats dominating in the Senate, and the Bush administration pushing for amnesty. They're not moving in my direction which is to deny all benefits to illegal immigrants. No birthright citizenship, no amnesty, no freebies. This isn't trashing immigrants. The matter should be looked at in an economic way because, if the states weren't compelled to supply free education, medical care, etc., most immigrants would go back where they came from.