| © Copyright 2009 eBroadcastMedia.com a division of KDResources, Inc. - All rights reserved |
| Interview with Paul Lambert 9-12 Candidate for Congress Alabama District 6 |
Host: Mr. Lambert, here are the points that I would like to address with you. The Patriot Act, the Federal Reserve, the role of our military and
globalization. Before I start, I believe that you are running for the first time, is that correct?
Candidate: Yes, I am a first time candidate. Never held an office of any kind before, so this is new territory for me.
Host: So what on earth made you decide to do this?
Candidate: Well, the story has to go back to the summer of 2008. I’ll be really quick. I’ll try to convey the story as fast as possible. A friend of
mine invited me to a march protesting things like the Patriot Act and those kinds of things. It was after the Presidential Primaries had occurred
and Representative Ron Paul from Texas had been eliminated from the Republican ticket, and it was pretty obvious that John McCain was
going to be the person running for the Presidency on the Republican platform. And I wasn’t particularly happy with that because in my opinion
he really was no different from what the other side was offering. And we were going to this rally. And we get up there and we do the march on
Washington, DC, and we listen to a lot of speakers. And it turns out one of the speakers that was there was Tom Woods. He’s the fellow who
wrote The Politically Incorrect Guide To American History. And I’d been conversing with Tom Woods via email about some subjects that he
covered in his book. We’re a home-schooling family so I actually had questions from his book. Anyway, he was speaking, and after he
finished speaking, he went over to a side table. And I told my friend that I need to go talk to Tom Woods. This is the first time I get to meet him
in person. And I get over there and I start giving him my rant about how unhappy I am with everything. And he looked me dead in the eye and
he said, “Well, what are you going to do about it?”
Host: Why did I know that was coming up? You know, that would be the absolute…. That’s exactly what I would be saying, “Then why don’t
you do something about it?”
Candidate: Well, that’s exactly right. So it kind of stunned me for a moment because I really hadn’t thought about what I would do about it. I
just wanted to complain, you know, but it made an impact on me and I mulled it over really very seriously for a few months. And in November
of last year after the election when I realized that people just really haven’t heard the message enough, I guess, about how important liberty is
and that the Constitution really is the rule of law. And that so many things are going on simply because we just don’t know, that I felt the need
to get the message out there, was that important. And that’s what really kind of prompted me moving in that direction, until finally on
Thanksgiving Day of 2008, I made the decision to run for Congress and I’ve not looked back since.
Host: Well, good for you. Now let’s get to the first point that I wanted to address with you and that is the Patriot Act. The intention of such an act
signed by President Bush in 2001 was to provide law enforcement with appropriate tools to intercept and obstruct terrorism, thus in a essence
protect our land. You want to introduce legislation to repeal it. Why do you wish to do that and what would you suggest we replace it with in
order to indeed continue to fight against terrorism right here at home?
Candidate: Well, I will tell you there’s a dual pronged attack that we need to institute as lovers of liberty against terrorism versus against the
citizens of the United States. So let me clarify that point. The Patriot Act is in and of itself a quote “kind of good idea” but it has so much that
goes along with it that makes it very unconstitutional. Being able to look into the very details of people’s lives, even American citizens who are
just quote “suspected” of being involved is a dangerous and very slippery slope for the government at especially the Federal level to have that
kind of power. So you’re asking me, “What is my opposition to it number one, and what would I do to replace it? Okay, well my opposition is
based simply upon there are very specified guarantees of rights to privacy that we have in our Constitution. It’s there in the Bill Of Rights and
that does violate them. And the funny part is a lot of legal scholars will not argue with that fact. They’ll say, Well yeah, we know this, but to keep
people safe, you know, we have to do these things.” Well my argument returns then to what Benjamin Franklin told us about liberty and
security. You know, if we’re willing to give up liberty for security, we’re not going to have either, and we won’t deserve either one. So it’s
important that we keep that in mind. We can not sacrifice liberty to be safe. The role of government is to protect our rights, not to grant them or
curtail them. So, what would I do to make a replacement option for the Patriot Act? Well I would first off, get out of the affairs of the Middle
East. That was Osama Bin Ladin’s primary recruitment tool to get people to participate in the 9/11 attacks. We were interfering over in the
Middle East as clarified in the 9/11 Commission Report. Now I know there are some people who don’t hold the 9/11 Commission Report in
very high regard, but if you read the 9/11 Commission Report and you take it at face value, what we see is a Middle-Eastern Region where
people are upset that Americans are over there and trying to influence their way of life. And it made it a great recruitment tool for Osama Bin
Ladin. So the first thing I would do is simply get out of the meddlesome affairs that don’t involve United States citizens. We have no business
being over there in their affairs building nations. All that does is give him fire to recruit more people. The next thing would be simply to punish
criminal offenders effectively. If someone commits a crime in the United States, for example Timothy McVey, he was a terrorist who blew up a
court house or Federal Building rather, in Oklahoma City. Well we didn’t have to mobilize the military for that and it didn’t require us to pass a
Patriot Act or anything similar to it to fight against what he was doing and we were able to try him in a court of law just fine. So why is it that a
group of a couple dozen people who basically pirate aircraft force almost 300 million Americans to have their rights placed in jeopardy for what
they did? So I just find it like trying to kill cockroaches with a hand grenade. You know, a lot of stuff gets blown up but the roaches are still
running around undeterred. That’s my problem. I think it was too much, too soon, and it should have been allowed to sunset when it did and
unfortunately we renewed it to continue, allowing the government to intervene in our lives.
Host: Okay, let’s move on to the Federal Reserve. You favor not only auditing the Federal Reserve, but you also favor plain outright eliminating
it?
Candidate: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Host: Why specifically do you wish to do that and how would you even plan to go about doing just that?
Candidate: Well, it’s a creature that would take in reality a whole lot of work to get rid of, but let’s talk about why I want to audit it first. Because it
has no real role in maintaining economic stability if we don’t let it. Let me clarify that point. Well, why would we want to audit them? Well, first
off, they’re not accountable to anyone. They have to be accountable. You know in the United States government, the way it’s set up, if you
looked at the founders’ intention of structuring our government, we had a legislative branch that is composed of a Senate and a House Of
Representatives. Now in the original structure of the founders’ intent, the Senate represented the intentions of the State Legislatures and the
House Of Representatives represented the needs, wants and views of the people directly. It was through those two bodies, the Senate and the
House Of Representatives, that all laws were to be authored and created, and it is to that body that all governmental action should be
accountable. Well the Fed isn’t accountable to either one, and in some remote manner, it’s kind of accountable to the Executive Branch
because the President gets to appoint the Chairman. And I think recently, within the last day or so, Obama just renewed the Chairman of the
Feds.
Host: Right, yes he did that.
Candidate: I guess we’ll call it his contract or his employment for another term. So there’s definitely some, a little bit of influence with the
Executive Branch, but not near enough. So, it needs to go because it’s not really accountable to anyone in any real or tangible way. And it
needs to be audited so we can kind of see what kind of shenanigans have been going on since its creation in 1913. If you look at the United
States dollar, and the value that it has lost since 1913. In almost 100 years, it’s lost 96% of its spending ability. That’s pretty bad for something
that was supposed to be so great, like the Federal Reserve Act. That’s not good. We should not have this boom and bust cycle of economics
that the body of the Federal Reserve is in many ways directly responsible for. So I think there’s a great amount of benefit that would be
derived from getting rid of it. What would we have to “replace it”? The founders didn’t really see a need for it. I know Alexander Hamilton
argued for it, but the only time we didn’t have a “national bank” in any real sense was under Andrew Jackson and the Federal Government didn’
t owe anybody anything under that term.
Host: That’s no longer the case.
Candidate: I think there would be a great amount of benefit derived if we didn’t have them, other than national bank overseeing.
Host: Now let’s move on to the role of our military and that’s going to rejoin a little bit the discussion we had on the Patriot Act. If indeed, not all
U.S. military interventions have been judicious, being originally from Europe, I am personally extremely grateful for the U.S. intervention in
World War II as, although I was not born yet, I believe that had it not been for the U.S. then, well you and I would not be having this conversation
today as I would be on the other side of the Atlantic, most likely speaking German.
Candidate: You’re absolutely correct, but here again, we’re talking about the proper role of the military of the United States.
Host: Right, because you wish to introduce a legislation that will better define the role of our military as you feel that our interventions around
the globe have caused the world to dislike us. So how would you see the role of our military in what is really becoming more and more of a
global world?
Candidate: You’re right. Well, if you really want to know what is the essence of my legislation would be about defining the military, it would be
to go back to Article One Section Eight of the United States Constitution and follow it. The founders of the United States of America, that
Republic that we now live, under now which we live, very specifically laid out the manner in which the military would exercise it, you know, or
would rather the military would be used to carry out its function under the Federal Constitution and under the state constitutions. In Article One
Section Eight we can see very specifically that only Congress has the power to declare war and if they do not in their opinion believe that a war
is the proper option, then they have a secondary power called the Letter Of Marquis And Reprisal which in terms of the 9/11 attacks, this is a
good segue to that and then I’ll come back to World War II and I’ll discuss the differences between the two. When we were attacked on
September 11th of 2001 by terrorists, they performed a criminal act. They were nothing more than a band of hijackers who pirated four
aircrafts and committed murder against American citizens and American property. They did not represent a sovereign nation and they were
not members of a sovereign nation’s military. And that is why I’m saying a military response was inappropriate. The appropriate response
from the United States would have been the issue of a Letter Of Marquis And Reprisal where Congress would have effectively issued a death
warrant against Osama Bin Laden and any of his other henchmen who were involved in the planning or execution of the attacks. This Letter Of
Marquis And Reprisal is granted to an individual, for a small group of individuals who would go over, infiltrate, kill, take care of whatever
needed to be taken care of to punish the committers of the crime and then we would be finished, you know, with the matter. See the problem
now is because we brought our beloved men and women in uniform into the fray if you will, we’ve sent them over there off of home turf without
the legal backing for being there, without the moral backing for being there, we are directly responsible for the death of thousands of them.
Osama Bin Laden is still free. We’re trillions of dollars now in military spending in debt. We still have no moral high ground for being there and
the Iraqi people aren’t any better off, and we here at home aren’t one bit safer. Now some can argue that we are, but I mean, realistically we’re
not. A terrorist could still waltz across our open borders with a briefcase dirty nuke and kill thousands, and our military being over there doesn’
t making us one bit safer over here.
Host: Are you saying also then in essence that we kind of gave too much credit to a bunch of thugs and that is kind of coming back to bite us at
this point?
Candidate: Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. What we took what were just a handful of criminals, thug dog criminals, and we mounted, you
know, tens of thousands of American troupes to go combat cockroaches. That’s why I was equating them to cockroaches. You know a hand
grenade may kill a few, but it’s going to destroy everything around it, but the cockroaches are not going to be deterred. They’re still going to do
what they’re going to do and we’ve got thousands of our brothers and sisters in arms who are now dead. Now let’s contrast that with World War
II. Let’s talk about World War II for a moment. World War II was a battle where our military forces engaged in battle the military forces of other
sovereign nations. We were attacked by the military of the Empire of Japan and thus the only appropriate response would have been a
military response and for Congress to do what it constitutionally could have done and that was to declare war against the Empire of Japan. A
couple of days later, they declared war on Germany and also on Italy. Now it’s important for us to remember that the object of war, Danielle, is
to reach an objective, and the objective is the surrender of the enemy. Here in the quote “war on terrorism” there is no end result because we
are “battling” an ideology. We’re battling a theory. We’re battling a belief. We’re not battling a nation. We’re not battling a sovereign existence
that is over there. We’re just battling people who have ideas and thoughts. So there is no surrender possible.
Host: Yeah, that’s what I was going to say, “which means that nobody can capitulate.
Candidate: Right, no one can. So we’re never going to win. And if you can’t ever win, then the only obvious resort is you lose, and every time
an American soldier loses their life, we’re losing. And that’s my problem. I don’t want anyone to misconstrue or think I’m anti-military. That is
not where I’m going. I’m simply saying that the suits who are in Washington, D.C. who make the decisions to send our brave and beloved men
and women overseas are not following the Constitution of the United States. The only appropriate measure for what happened to us on the
September 11th events were a Marquis And Reprisal Letter and that’s it. That’s the only constitutional way they should have responded.
Host: Alright let’s move on to our last point. You favor national sovereignty, yet it is clear that each day we’re becoming really more and more
global and that is further fueled by new technology developments such as for example the Internet and also easy access to global
communication. Some would say that it is now impossible to remain the United States of America as it has been for over two centuries but we
should become the United States of the World. Do you see globalization hurting our nation or helping it ,and how about even treaties and
organizations such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organization and even NAFTA?
Candidate: I am completely opposed to any and all forms of globalization and I will tell you why. It’s not that I’m a xenophobe. I’m not afraid of
people from other countries. What I have a fear for is because we’re talking about cultures that span the entire planet being different than our
own, we have to understand that what we hold true and dear may not be held true and dear by another culture. Now that doesn’t make their
culture wrong, it simply makes it inappropriate for our culture, and when I say culture, I mean the American experience. You know, we have a
Constitution that defines the things that we hold dear, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably
assemble, and to petition our government for redress of grievances. There are countries in the world where such thinking is not only, would
not only be considered inappropriate, but unheard of. They just simply don’t know of such things. And because we have seen the United
Nations for example passing things like rights of a child which clearly violate parental rights here in the United States, fortunately the Senate
has not ratified that portion of the agreement of the rights of a child, but those kinds of things that may be okay for other countries, would not be
okay here. And that is the reason why I oppose really even being members of organizations like that because it leaves the door cracked open
just enough for that kind of stuff to come in. The United States is a unique experiment and we are in many ways still learning how this republic
thing works and in some cases we’ve made some mistakes. And that’s one of the reasons why I’m running – to help try to rectify some of
those mistakes and purge them back out of the political system. But yes, I’m opposed to all forms of globalization. Now I want to make sure
that you also understand my position on foreign policy. I believe completely and totally that we should be friends with all nations and
entangled in alliances with none. And the reason I believe this is because the moment we ally ourselves with a nation, we automatically may
alienate ourselves from another one. And that is a poor, poor way to run a foreign policy. We need all nations to know that they can approach
the United States and have equal footing and be given an equal chance for commerce, for friendship and for understanding. And that doesn’t
make me zenophobic. What it makes me is proud of what we are and that we’re willing to show the world by example of how great what we
are can be of benefit to them. And if it doesn’t work for them, then so be it. I’m not about forcing what we are upon them either, so I’m not into
nation-building or “spreading democracy.” A, we are not a democracy, we’re a Federal Republic. We’ve never been a democracy. Democracy
leads to anarchy and I’m not for that. What I am for is just setting an example and if other nations choose to emulate our model, then so be it.
Host: Well setting an example is always a good thing and I believe that a lot of citizens are probably going to want to try to help you so how can
they contact you in your campaign to give you that assistance?
Candidate: Well the easiest way to get in touch with the campaign and to learn more about me is to visit the website at www.VoteLambert.org.
My stands are there, my positions on most of the major issues are there and there’s contact information to get in touch with me also.
Host: Okay, wonderful. Well now I want to thank you Mr Lambert for being on the 912 Project Show today.
Candidate: Thank you very much.
globalization. Before I start, I believe that you are running for the first time, is that correct?
Candidate: Yes, I am a first time candidate. Never held an office of any kind before, so this is new territory for me.
Host: So what on earth made you decide to do this?
Candidate: Well, the story has to go back to the summer of 2008. I’ll be really quick. I’ll try to convey the story as fast as possible. A friend of
mine invited me to a march protesting things like the Patriot Act and those kinds of things. It was after the Presidential Primaries had occurred
and Representative Ron Paul from Texas had been eliminated from the Republican ticket, and it was pretty obvious that John McCain was
going to be the person running for the Presidency on the Republican platform. And I wasn’t particularly happy with that because in my opinion
he really was no different from what the other side was offering. And we were going to this rally. And we get up there and we do the march on
Washington, DC, and we listen to a lot of speakers. And it turns out one of the speakers that was there was Tom Woods. He’s the fellow who
wrote The Politically Incorrect Guide To American History. And I’d been conversing with Tom Woods via email about some subjects that he
covered in his book. We’re a home-schooling family so I actually had questions from his book. Anyway, he was speaking, and after he
finished speaking, he went over to a side table. And I told my friend that I need to go talk to Tom Woods. This is the first time I get to meet him
in person. And I get over there and I start giving him my rant about how unhappy I am with everything. And he looked me dead in the eye and
he said, “Well, what are you going to do about it?”
Host: Why did I know that was coming up? You know, that would be the absolute…. That’s exactly what I would be saying, “Then why don’t
you do something about it?”
Candidate: Well, that’s exactly right. So it kind of stunned me for a moment because I really hadn’t thought about what I would do about it. I
just wanted to complain, you know, but it made an impact on me and I mulled it over really very seriously for a few months. And in November
of last year after the election when I realized that people just really haven’t heard the message enough, I guess, about how important liberty is
and that the Constitution really is the rule of law. And that so many things are going on simply because we just don’t know, that I felt the need
to get the message out there, was that important. And that’s what really kind of prompted me moving in that direction, until finally on
Thanksgiving Day of 2008, I made the decision to run for Congress and I’ve not looked back since.
Host: Well, good for you. Now let’s get to the first point that I wanted to address with you and that is the Patriot Act. The intention of such an act
signed by President Bush in 2001 was to provide law enforcement with appropriate tools to intercept and obstruct terrorism, thus in a essence
protect our land. You want to introduce legislation to repeal it. Why do you wish to do that and what would you suggest we replace it with in
order to indeed continue to fight against terrorism right here at home?
Candidate: Well, I will tell you there’s a dual pronged attack that we need to institute as lovers of liberty against terrorism versus against the
citizens of the United States. So let me clarify that point. The Patriot Act is in and of itself a quote “kind of good idea” but it has so much that
goes along with it that makes it very unconstitutional. Being able to look into the very details of people’s lives, even American citizens who are
just quote “suspected” of being involved is a dangerous and very slippery slope for the government at especially the Federal level to have that
kind of power. So you’re asking me, “What is my opposition to it number one, and what would I do to replace it? Okay, well my opposition is
based simply upon there are very specified guarantees of rights to privacy that we have in our Constitution. It’s there in the Bill Of Rights and
that does violate them. And the funny part is a lot of legal scholars will not argue with that fact. They’ll say, Well yeah, we know this, but to keep
people safe, you know, we have to do these things.” Well my argument returns then to what Benjamin Franklin told us about liberty and
security. You know, if we’re willing to give up liberty for security, we’re not going to have either, and we won’t deserve either one. So it’s
important that we keep that in mind. We can not sacrifice liberty to be safe. The role of government is to protect our rights, not to grant them or
curtail them. So, what would I do to make a replacement option for the Patriot Act? Well I would first off, get out of the affairs of the Middle
East. That was Osama Bin Ladin’s primary recruitment tool to get people to participate in the 9/11 attacks. We were interfering over in the
Middle East as clarified in the 9/11 Commission Report. Now I know there are some people who don’t hold the 9/11 Commission Report in
very high regard, but if you read the 9/11 Commission Report and you take it at face value, what we see is a Middle-Eastern Region where
people are upset that Americans are over there and trying to influence their way of life. And it made it a great recruitment tool for Osama Bin
Ladin. So the first thing I would do is simply get out of the meddlesome affairs that don’t involve United States citizens. We have no business
being over there in their affairs building nations. All that does is give him fire to recruit more people. The next thing would be simply to punish
criminal offenders effectively. If someone commits a crime in the United States, for example Timothy McVey, he was a terrorist who blew up a
court house or Federal Building rather, in Oklahoma City. Well we didn’t have to mobilize the military for that and it didn’t require us to pass a
Patriot Act or anything similar to it to fight against what he was doing and we were able to try him in a court of law just fine. So why is it that a
group of a couple dozen people who basically pirate aircraft force almost 300 million Americans to have their rights placed in jeopardy for what
they did? So I just find it like trying to kill cockroaches with a hand grenade. You know, a lot of stuff gets blown up but the roaches are still
running around undeterred. That’s my problem. I think it was too much, too soon, and it should have been allowed to sunset when it did and
unfortunately we renewed it to continue, allowing the government to intervene in our lives.
Host: Okay, let’s move on to the Federal Reserve. You favor not only auditing the Federal Reserve, but you also favor plain outright eliminating
it?
Candidate: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Host: Why specifically do you wish to do that and how would you even plan to go about doing just that?
Candidate: Well, it’s a creature that would take in reality a whole lot of work to get rid of, but let’s talk about why I want to audit it first. Because it
has no real role in maintaining economic stability if we don’t let it. Let me clarify that point. Well, why would we want to audit them? Well, first
off, they’re not accountable to anyone. They have to be accountable. You know in the United States government, the way it’s set up, if you
looked at the founders’ intention of structuring our government, we had a legislative branch that is composed of a Senate and a House Of
Representatives. Now in the original structure of the founders’ intent, the Senate represented the intentions of the State Legislatures and the
House Of Representatives represented the needs, wants and views of the people directly. It was through those two bodies, the Senate and the
House Of Representatives, that all laws were to be authored and created, and it is to that body that all governmental action should be
accountable. Well the Fed isn’t accountable to either one, and in some remote manner, it’s kind of accountable to the Executive Branch
because the President gets to appoint the Chairman. And I think recently, within the last day or so, Obama just renewed the Chairman of the
Feds.
Host: Right, yes he did that.
Candidate: I guess we’ll call it his contract or his employment for another term. So there’s definitely some, a little bit of influence with the
Executive Branch, but not near enough. So, it needs to go because it’s not really accountable to anyone in any real or tangible way. And it
needs to be audited so we can kind of see what kind of shenanigans have been going on since its creation in 1913. If you look at the United
States dollar, and the value that it has lost since 1913. In almost 100 years, it’s lost 96% of its spending ability. That’s pretty bad for something
that was supposed to be so great, like the Federal Reserve Act. That’s not good. We should not have this boom and bust cycle of economics
that the body of the Federal Reserve is in many ways directly responsible for. So I think there’s a great amount of benefit that would be
derived from getting rid of it. What would we have to “replace it”? The founders didn’t really see a need for it. I know Alexander Hamilton
argued for it, but the only time we didn’t have a “national bank” in any real sense was under Andrew Jackson and the Federal Government didn’
t owe anybody anything under that term.
Host: That’s no longer the case.
Candidate: I think there would be a great amount of benefit derived if we didn’t have them, other than national bank overseeing.
Host: Now let’s move on to the role of our military and that’s going to rejoin a little bit the discussion we had on the Patriot Act. If indeed, not all
U.S. military interventions have been judicious, being originally from Europe, I am personally extremely grateful for the U.S. intervention in
World War II as, although I was not born yet, I believe that had it not been for the U.S. then, well you and I would not be having this conversation
today as I would be on the other side of the Atlantic, most likely speaking German.
Candidate: You’re absolutely correct, but here again, we’re talking about the proper role of the military of the United States.
Host: Right, because you wish to introduce a legislation that will better define the role of our military as you feel that our interventions around
the globe have caused the world to dislike us. So how would you see the role of our military in what is really becoming more and more of a
global world?
Candidate: You’re right. Well, if you really want to know what is the essence of my legislation would be about defining the military, it would be
to go back to Article One Section Eight of the United States Constitution and follow it. The founders of the United States of America, that
Republic that we now live, under now which we live, very specifically laid out the manner in which the military would exercise it, you know, or
would rather the military would be used to carry out its function under the Federal Constitution and under the state constitutions. In Article One
Section Eight we can see very specifically that only Congress has the power to declare war and if they do not in their opinion believe that a war
is the proper option, then they have a secondary power called the Letter Of Marquis And Reprisal which in terms of the 9/11 attacks, this is a
good segue to that and then I’ll come back to World War II and I’ll discuss the differences between the two. When we were attacked on
September 11th of 2001 by terrorists, they performed a criminal act. They were nothing more than a band of hijackers who pirated four
aircrafts and committed murder against American citizens and American property. They did not represent a sovereign nation and they were
not members of a sovereign nation’s military. And that is why I’m saying a military response was inappropriate. The appropriate response
from the United States would have been the issue of a Letter Of Marquis And Reprisal where Congress would have effectively issued a death
warrant against Osama Bin Laden and any of his other henchmen who were involved in the planning or execution of the attacks. This Letter Of
Marquis And Reprisal is granted to an individual, for a small group of individuals who would go over, infiltrate, kill, take care of whatever
needed to be taken care of to punish the committers of the crime and then we would be finished, you know, with the matter. See the problem
now is because we brought our beloved men and women in uniform into the fray if you will, we’ve sent them over there off of home turf without
the legal backing for being there, without the moral backing for being there, we are directly responsible for the death of thousands of them.
Osama Bin Laden is still free. We’re trillions of dollars now in military spending in debt. We still have no moral high ground for being there and
the Iraqi people aren’t any better off, and we here at home aren’t one bit safer. Now some can argue that we are, but I mean, realistically we’re
not. A terrorist could still waltz across our open borders with a briefcase dirty nuke and kill thousands, and our military being over there doesn’
t making us one bit safer over here.
Host: Are you saying also then in essence that we kind of gave too much credit to a bunch of thugs and that is kind of coming back to bite us at
this point?
Candidate: Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. What we took what were just a handful of criminals, thug dog criminals, and we mounted, you
know, tens of thousands of American troupes to go combat cockroaches. That’s why I was equating them to cockroaches. You know a hand
grenade may kill a few, but it’s going to destroy everything around it, but the cockroaches are not going to be deterred. They’re still going to do
what they’re going to do and we’ve got thousands of our brothers and sisters in arms who are now dead. Now let’s contrast that with World War
II. Let’s talk about World War II for a moment. World War II was a battle where our military forces engaged in battle the military forces of other
sovereign nations. We were attacked by the military of the Empire of Japan and thus the only appropriate response would have been a
military response and for Congress to do what it constitutionally could have done and that was to declare war against the Empire of Japan. A
couple of days later, they declared war on Germany and also on Italy. Now it’s important for us to remember that the object of war, Danielle, is
to reach an objective, and the objective is the surrender of the enemy. Here in the quote “war on terrorism” there is no end result because we
are “battling” an ideology. We’re battling a theory. We’re battling a belief. We’re not battling a nation. We’re not battling a sovereign existence
that is over there. We’re just battling people who have ideas and thoughts. So there is no surrender possible.
Host: Yeah, that’s what I was going to say, “which means that nobody can capitulate.
Candidate: Right, no one can. So we’re never going to win. And if you can’t ever win, then the only obvious resort is you lose, and every time
an American soldier loses their life, we’re losing. And that’s my problem. I don’t want anyone to misconstrue or think I’m anti-military. That is
not where I’m going. I’m simply saying that the suits who are in Washington, D.C. who make the decisions to send our brave and beloved men
and women overseas are not following the Constitution of the United States. The only appropriate measure for what happened to us on the
September 11th events were a Marquis And Reprisal Letter and that’s it. That’s the only constitutional way they should have responded.
Host: Alright let’s move on to our last point. You favor national sovereignty, yet it is clear that each day we’re becoming really more and more
global and that is further fueled by new technology developments such as for example the Internet and also easy access to global
communication. Some would say that it is now impossible to remain the United States of America as it has been for over two centuries but we
should become the United States of the World. Do you see globalization hurting our nation or helping it ,and how about even treaties and
organizations such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organization and even NAFTA?
Candidate: I am completely opposed to any and all forms of globalization and I will tell you why. It’s not that I’m a xenophobe. I’m not afraid of
people from other countries. What I have a fear for is because we’re talking about cultures that span the entire planet being different than our
own, we have to understand that what we hold true and dear may not be held true and dear by another culture. Now that doesn’t make their
culture wrong, it simply makes it inappropriate for our culture, and when I say culture, I mean the American experience. You know, we have a
Constitution that defines the things that we hold dear, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably
assemble, and to petition our government for redress of grievances. There are countries in the world where such thinking is not only, would
not only be considered inappropriate, but unheard of. They just simply don’t know of such things. And because we have seen the United
Nations for example passing things like rights of a child which clearly violate parental rights here in the United States, fortunately the Senate
has not ratified that portion of the agreement of the rights of a child, but those kinds of things that may be okay for other countries, would not be
okay here. And that is the reason why I oppose really even being members of organizations like that because it leaves the door cracked open
just enough for that kind of stuff to come in. The United States is a unique experiment and we are in many ways still learning how this republic
thing works and in some cases we’ve made some mistakes. And that’s one of the reasons why I’m running – to help try to rectify some of
those mistakes and purge them back out of the political system. But yes, I’m opposed to all forms of globalization. Now I want to make sure
that you also understand my position on foreign policy. I believe completely and totally that we should be friends with all nations and
entangled in alliances with none. And the reason I believe this is because the moment we ally ourselves with a nation, we automatically may
alienate ourselves from another one. And that is a poor, poor way to run a foreign policy. We need all nations to know that they can approach
the United States and have equal footing and be given an equal chance for commerce, for friendship and for understanding. And that doesn’t
make me zenophobic. What it makes me is proud of what we are and that we’re willing to show the world by example of how great what we
are can be of benefit to them. And if it doesn’t work for them, then so be it. I’m not about forcing what we are upon them either, so I’m not into
nation-building or “spreading democracy.” A, we are not a democracy, we’re a Federal Republic. We’ve never been a democracy. Democracy
leads to anarchy and I’m not for that. What I am for is just setting an example and if other nations choose to emulate our model, then so be it.
Host: Well setting an example is always a good thing and I believe that a lot of citizens are probably going to want to try to help you so how can
they contact you in your campaign to give you that assistance?
Candidate: Well the easiest way to get in touch with the campaign and to learn more about me is to visit the website at www.VoteLambert.org.
My stands are there, my positions on most of the major issues are there and there’s contact information to get in touch with me also.
Host: Okay, wonderful. Well now I want to thank you Mr Lambert for being on the 912 Project Show today.
Candidate: Thank you very much.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Interview Transcript
| Click arrow to listen to interview |
Welcome to The 9-12 Show...
| Show Host Danielle Hampson |
| Transcript Copying Rule |
Members of the media
may use this transcript
in whole or part under
conditions:
transcript, you must
email us:
a- the name of the
publication where the
transcript is to be used,
as well as its web
address;
b- the title of your article;
c- reporter/writer's full
name & contact
information.
2. Your article must
make reference to this
website as the source
of information.
Bloggers and all other
parties:
Permission may or may
not be granted. Email
your request with your
full name and phone #
for review.
may use this transcript
in whole or part under
conditions:
transcript, you must
email us:
a- the name of the
publication where the
transcript is to be used,
as well as its web
address;
b- the title of your article;
c- reporter/writer's full
name & contact
information.
2. Your article must
make reference to this
website as the source
of information.
Bloggers and all other
parties:
Permission may or may
not be granted. Email
your request with your
full name and phone #
for review.
| Support the 9-12 movement Join our email list |
| available by clicking on links below |
