| © Copyright 2009 eBroadcastMedia.com a division of KDResources, Inc. - All rights reserved |
| Interview with R.J. Harris 9-12 Candidate for Congress Oklahoma District 4 |
Host: Mr. Harris, the topics that I would like to address with you today are the Constitution, foreign policy, the Second Amendment, and the
monetary policy. Now let’s start with the Constitution. It was ratified 222 years ago and some say it’s now an old document that needs to be
updated and some also go as far as saying it should be scratched altogether. You strongly believe in upholding the Constitution. Why?
Candidate: I believe in upholding the Constitution in the strongest possible measures. And I believe so because it is the vehicle of our
consent. John Loft? argued in his Treaty ??? government ??? For the government and the government action to be legitimate, it requires
consent of the people. The way that we signal our consent to the government that we have selected is through our Constitution and through
the ratification process and the super majority that is required, we consent to the form of government that we’ve chosen. And so, therefore, it is
critical that the Constitution be upheld, that it be rigidly followed, and that if it is going to be changed, that it be done as per the instructions
given to us by the founders and contained within that document, i.e. the Amendment process. The Constitution represents the real and true
contract with America. And nobody would ever say that they expect that the lease on their home or the lease on their car would be a “living”
document, and that it could change by and for the leave of either party because such a lease wouldn’t really be a lease. It really wouldn’t be
an agreement at all. It really wouldn’t bind anybody to anything. So, you know, how much more so is it important that the contract with
America, the document, the Constitution that binds us to our government and our government to us be rigid and binding and applicable at all
times.
Host: There has already been a lot of discussions about where our current government is going in terms of adhering to the Constitution.
There’s no doubt that we have definitely strayed away from it, at least in the last six months. Prior to that, do you feel that over the previous
decades, I’m going back even as far back as the beginning of the Twentieth Century, do you feel that the government has steadily strayed
away from the Constitution, that we need to really go back to its core principles?
Candidate: Most definitely. Our elected government at all levels, Federal, state and local, have strayed incrementally away from the
Constitution to the detriment of the people. Unfortunately, the people have grown less and less familiar with the documents, that is the contract
that they have with the government. And because of that lack of familiarity, it’s how our government has allowed to stray away from it in the
first place. If each successive generation became more and more familiar with the constraints that’s placed upon the Federal Government
through the Constitution, then it would become harder and harder and harder for the Federal Government to breach its contract with us. So
our very first step in reasserting the Constitution, it’s for us as individuals to begin reading it.
Host: Well, then we need to go back also to the school system. What do you think needs to be done at that level? Is the school system still
teaching our children the Constitution?
Candidate: We need to teach our children the Constitution. The founders were very keen on citizens and their (what they call their posterity
which was their children) having access to liberty and freedom. And so we want to make sure that gets passed on to our children. That’s our
responsibility, not some status run school system. We all know how poorly the government does at delivering the individual welfares. As a
matter of fact, the Constitution does not even allow the Federal Government to provide for the individual welfare. Article 1 Section 8 limits the
Congress’ ability to provide for welfare to the general welfare of the United States, i.e. the Nation’s state, not select individuals. And they’re the
ones that really, truly believe in the free market system and free market capitalism. We know just how poorly the government delivers goods
and services, and not only goods and services but welfare. And so, you know, education being a very modern example of the individual
welfare, we certainly should not expect that the Federal Government is going to provide that education to us in any way that’s any better than
we see other socialistic deliveries of welfare. So we should not be relying on the state education system to teach our children the Constitution,
the Bill of Rights, the founding documents or anything else for that matter. We should either be teaching our children that or we should be
working through the free markets provide good education for our children and we need to have a rallying cry to end this Federally intrusive
and stated type of education system which is clearly been failing us for the last hundred years.
Host: Now you are running for Congress in Oklahoma. Should you be elected, you will become a member of the government body that
represents your constituents. Will the way you look at government then change and in your opinion what is the role of government anyway?
Candidate: The role of the Federal Government is there’s only two functions for it that our founders recognize, and that is to protect individual
liberty and to protect our state sovereignty. My view and position on government will certainly not change when I’m elected. And more so to
the point, those constituents out there not only in the Fourth District but around the country can read my position on these issues at my website
RJHarris2010.com. And so they will always know in clear and concise articulated terms what my positions are, have been and will be. And so
there’s not any vague type of rehashing or, you know, party line politics there on my website. You’ll see exactly what I have to say on these
issues and so that way people will know what it is they’re getting from me whether it’s now or after I’m elected.
Host: Now let’s move to foreign policy and let me establish first that you served in the military in Korea and in Iraq. And when I read the
foreign policy page on your website, I was first taken back a little but then I gave it some thought and I realized one has to pay very close
attention to all the words that you wrote on that page. Now could you please explain your foreign policy position in getting our military back
home, not just from Iraq but from other parts of the world?
Candidate: Well, the Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution makes it very clear what the numerated functions of the Congress are
and Article One, excuse me Article 2 makes it very clear what the numerated functions of the President are. And it gives, the Constitution
gives to the Congress, not to the President, the power to declare war. Now what that means is if only the Congress can declare war then that
also means that the President cannot commit acts of war, that we’re being committed to a war that he doesn’t have the power to declare. Now,
the President however is the Commander In Chief of the military at all times, you know, and that includes peacetime. And the Commander In
Chief as well as the Congress are charged with providing the common defense of the United States. Which means that at any moment that we
might be under threat, the President can act to defend us and our citizens no matter where we are in the world, our citizens and our property.
However, to act beyond the scope of immediate defense, i.e. to switch to offense which would include things like retaliatory strikes, invasions
and so forth, those things would be recognized by the international body of nations as acts of war. And since Article One Section Eight makes
it clear that only Congress can declare war, then it simply follows that the President cannot initiate those actions that would result in a war. And
so that’s the cornerstone of my foreign policy philosophy is that the President and the Congress act within the Constitution itself and not be
stepping outside of those roles and creating horrible future legal and constitutional precedents that can then be manipulated and controlled
by future leadership who don’t have the same intentions as the people who broke it in the first place.
Host: Let’s go to the Second Amendment. I grew up in Europe where guns are basically a no-no, so I’m not one who particularly like them,
however, I have to admit that you make a very strong argument for retaining the right to bear arms despite the push by many to take that right
away from us citizens under the banner of “security”. Would you please explain that position?
Candidate: Most of it is constitutional position. The Second Amendment is very clear that the liberty to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. And in our founders’ time, the first line of law enforcement defense came from the individual citizen. The public at that time and for
a long time afterwards, actually all the way up until the recent modern era, the public was an armed public. And so the very first line of
defense against, you know, that low level type, that individual crime if you will, that was provided by the citizens themselves because they
were armed and they can defend themselves. Only if there was a need for a second level of forcement of the peace, that was when the
citizens turned to their elected law enforcement representative and that key is that this person is elected and that is the sheriff. And even then,
for the sheriff to execute those police powers that have been given to him by the electorate, he had to exercise them in a very legal and
constitutional way because the people he was going to go arrest were also armed so he had to make sure that he was carrying out things in
the correct way. So when we shift gears into the way things are now, the public is not as armed as it once was and we’ve become a lot more
reliant on a police state to provide that first line of security. However, we see continually that just relying upon the police is not always going to
be and most of the time it’s not going to be what prevents that harm coming to us in that immediate fashion. It’s our ability to defend ourselves
at the immediate point of crime occurring, and unfortunately there’s a voice within the modern body politic that says, “ Well, you know, only the
police should be trusted to carry guns, only the police are trained enough, and have an even temper enough.” But by now, folks, we should
have seen the lies of that. We see numerous examples of police abuse, police brutality, excessive use of force. We can no longer sit back
and simply believe that we can hand over the role, the job of our individual security into the hands of someone just because they’re wearing a
uniform and allowed legally to carry a gun. That was never the intention of the founders. It’s something that’s happened only within the last 50
or 60 years. We need to take back and reassert our Second Amendment rights to be the first line of defense against crime and I think if we
were to do that, we would have a lot more polite society because criminals in general would walk around with the expectation that everyone is
armed.
Host: You indicated also in your website, if I read this correctly, that it’s also another way of check and balances with our own government
system.
Candidate: That is correct. That is exactly what our founders intended was that it would be very hard to exercise tyranny against an armed
population. And so therefore they intended that the last line of defense against tyranny being perpetrated against the American people would
be the American people themselves with the power to defend themselves from unconstitutional actions.
Host: Let’s get to our next topic. Your position on our monetary policy is that the Federal Reserve Act and the Coinage Act of 1965 are
unconstitutional and that it needs to be repealed by Congress. Would you please explain this and furthermore how realistically can that even
be done?
Candidate: Well, the Article One Section Eight states that the Congress and only the Congress has the authority to coin money, to create
credit, and to run our monetary policy. Unfortunately, in the early 1900s the Congress delegated that authority to the Federal Reserve and
ever since then whenever there’s anything that goes wrong in our financial system or with our monetary policy, the Congress simply points at
the Federal Reserve and says it’s their fault. However, that doesn’t suffice because the Constitution places that responsibility with the
Congress, so whether they delegate it or not, the buck still stops with them. And unfortunately we have gravitated to a system of fiat currency
which isn’t backed by anything. And our founders knew how detrimental that could be. In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War there were
massive amount of war debts to be paid, the Continental Congress issued Continental Dollars and there was nothing backing them. There’s
runaway inflation rates and so when they wrote the Constitution and had it ratified, they wanted to make sure that that was no longer a device
that the government could rely on, i.e. the debasement and devaluation of the people’s money through a fiat currency. Unfortunately, in the
last 100 years, we’ve slowly allowed the real value behind our currency to be replaced with a fiat currency that isn’t backed by anything which
can be controlled by a private entity which is the Federal Reserve. It can be manipulated to create bubbles in business cycles, all this power
in the hands of a group of bankers who are not even being fully controlled by the Congress as the Constitution would require that the
Congress be in charge of those things. So what we need to do is we need to repeal those laws that passed that power from the Congress to
someone else. Put it back in the hands of the Congress where when they take action that apply to our money and our credit, that they can be
held somatically accountable as they are now being held. See right now we see a lesson in the Congress being held politically accountable
by the waves and waves of public sentiment, standing up, going to tea parties, going to town hall meetings, about the bailouts, about the
health care reform bill. See, that is the type of political accountability that Congress is supposed to be held to. Then we insist that the
Congress reassert control over our money and credit. Then when maybe things that are wrong with it, they can be held politically accountable
for that, the way we see them being held politically accountable for the bailout votes, and for their health care bill.
Host: Yeah, absolutely. Now Mr. Harris, this is the first time you are running and this as you well know, this can be a brutal job. What made
you decide to run anyway?
Candidate: What made me decide to run is that, you know, I have slowly began to educate myself on a lot of these issues and had noticed that
my own local representative had a very horrible conservative voting record. It wasn’t really conservative at all, had a 50% liberty index rating,
and so I wasn’t too happy with my representative. I had been volunteering to work at the Republican Party Headquarters in Cleveland County
where I live, and then came the bailout vote. Unfortunately, yes my representative is from my own party. He’s a Republican but he voted for
the bailout and that was just the final straw that broke it for me. And I went around to some other senior statesmen in my party and
encouraged them to run. Nobody wanted to run against him because he was an incumbent Republican and nobody wanted to take that step,
or to instigate the party in that way. And when I talked to my mentor, Roger Warren, the GOP Chairman at that time for Cleveland County, he
said to me, “Well, listen RJ, if no one else is going to do it, you need to do it.” It’s not a matter of what the party is going to do about it, but what
are the citizens going to do about it. And after thinking about that for a few months, I realized that, you know, we can’t always pick and choose
the time and place in which we are called by our founders to stand up and defend freedom and liberty. We don’t get to choose that time, but I
can clearly feel that that time is being chosen for me. And so I made that step, and I made the decision to go ahead to challenge Tom Cole
and to try to provide the people of the Oklahoma’s Fourth District with a real alternative in August of 2010 to choose between, you know, an
establishment supported, socialist progressive Republican, or to choose me, a Constitutional Conservative who is going to Congress knowing
what the functions of the Federal Government are supposed to be and determined to serve our Republic, restore our Constitution, and (???).
Host: Well, you’ve got a tough job coming at you and you’re going to need some support so how may citizens and supporters help and
contact you or your campaign?
Candidate: Well they can reach us through our website which is RJHarris2010.com and there you will find the ability to contact the campaign
manager, his phone number, the email address. You can sign up for the newsletter. You can find us on Facebook. You can find us on
MySpace. And there’s also a place for people that are looking for candidates from their area, for Liberty candidates. They’re popping up all
over the country and there’s a great website out there called RetakeCongress.com and also the 912Candidates.org website. If you’re looking
for candidates that have been willing to take the 912 Candidates Oath, which I have. As a matter of fact, I was the very first 912 Candidate in
the entire country and you can find those candidates from your state at 912Candidates.org and I would encourage everyone out there that
listens to this that, you know, even if there’s not a candidate from your district running, find a candidate through these websites or through the
internet that is speaking truth power, and is speaking a message of Constitutional Conservatism that you can get behind. Go to them,
volunteer for them, blog for them on the internet because, folks, it doesn’t matter whether you live in Maine or Oklahoma or Hawaii. Another
vote of U. S. Congress to support our Constitution and to restore itm and to save our Republic, is another vote for you no matter what district
you live in. And we need these Liberty candidates to stand up and take this fight to the establishment and retake our Congress on behalf of
the people.
Host: And to add to that wonderful list of resources, let’s also add this show because we are focusing strictly on the 912 Candidates, the
912ProjectShow.com. Mr. Harris, thank you very much for being on 912ProjectShow.com today.
Candidate: All right. It was a pleasure and thank you so much for having me on. I look forward to being on again in the future any time you’d
like.
Host: Okay, wonderful. Thank you.
monetary policy. Now let’s start with the Constitution. It was ratified 222 years ago and some say it’s now an old document that needs to be
updated and some also go as far as saying it should be scratched altogether. You strongly believe in upholding the Constitution. Why?
Candidate: I believe in upholding the Constitution in the strongest possible measures. And I believe so because it is the vehicle of our
consent. John Loft? argued in his Treaty ??? government ??? For the government and the government action to be legitimate, it requires
consent of the people. The way that we signal our consent to the government that we have selected is through our Constitution and through
the ratification process and the super majority that is required, we consent to the form of government that we’ve chosen. And so, therefore, it is
critical that the Constitution be upheld, that it be rigidly followed, and that if it is going to be changed, that it be done as per the instructions
given to us by the founders and contained within that document, i.e. the Amendment process. The Constitution represents the real and true
contract with America. And nobody would ever say that they expect that the lease on their home or the lease on their car would be a “living”
document, and that it could change by and for the leave of either party because such a lease wouldn’t really be a lease. It really wouldn’t be
an agreement at all. It really wouldn’t bind anybody to anything. So, you know, how much more so is it important that the contract with
America, the document, the Constitution that binds us to our government and our government to us be rigid and binding and applicable at all
times.
Host: There has already been a lot of discussions about where our current government is going in terms of adhering to the Constitution.
There’s no doubt that we have definitely strayed away from it, at least in the last six months. Prior to that, do you feel that over the previous
decades, I’m going back even as far back as the beginning of the Twentieth Century, do you feel that the government has steadily strayed
away from the Constitution, that we need to really go back to its core principles?
Candidate: Most definitely. Our elected government at all levels, Federal, state and local, have strayed incrementally away from the
Constitution to the detriment of the people. Unfortunately, the people have grown less and less familiar with the documents, that is the contract
that they have with the government. And because of that lack of familiarity, it’s how our government has allowed to stray away from it in the
first place. If each successive generation became more and more familiar with the constraints that’s placed upon the Federal Government
through the Constitution, then it would become harder and harder and harder for the Federal Government to breach its contract with us. So
our very first step in reasserting the Constitution, it’s for us as individuals to begin reading it.
Host: Well, then we need to go back also to the school system. What do you think needs to be done at that level? Is the school system still
teaching our children the Constitution?
Candidate: We need to teach our children the Constitution. The founders were very keen on citizens and their (what they call their posterity
which was their children) having access to liberty and freedom. And so we want to make sure that gets passed on to our children. That’s our
responsibility, not some status run school system. We all know how poorly the government does at delivering the individual welfares. As a
matter of fact, the Constitution does not even allow the Federal Government to provide for the individual welfare. Article 1 Section 8 limits the
Congress’ ability to provide for welfare to the general welfare of the United States, i.e. the Nation’s state, not select individuals. And they’re the
ones that really, truly believe in the free market system and free market capitalism. We know just how poorly the government delivers goods
and services, and not only goods and services but welfare. And so, you know, education being a very modern example of the individual
welfare, we certainly should not expect that the Federal Government is going to provide that education to us in any way that’s any better than
we see other socialistic deliveries of welfare. So we should not be relying on the state education system to teach our children the Constitution,
the Bill of Rights, the founding documents or anything else for that matter. We should either be teaching our children that or we should be
working through the free markets provide good education for our children and we need to have a rallying cry to end this Federally intrusive
and stated type of education system which is clearly been failing us for the last hundred years.
Host: Now you are running for Congress in Oklahoma. Should you be elected, you will become a member of the government body that
represents your constituents. Will the way you look at government then change and in your opinion what is the role of government anyway?
Candidate: The role of the Federal Government is there’s only two functions for it that our founders recognize, and that is to protect individual
liberty and to protect our state sovereignty. My view and position on government will certainly not change when I’m elected. And more so to
the point, those constituents out there not only in the Fourth District but around the country can read my position on these issues at my website
RJHarris2010.com. And so they will always know in clear and concise articulated terms what my positions are, have been and will be. And so
there’s not any vague type of rehashing or, you know, party line politics there on my website. You’ll see exactly what I have to say on these
issues and so that way people will know what it is they’re getting from me whether it’s now or after I’m elected.
Host: Now let’s move to foreign policy and let me establish first that you served in the military in Korea and in Iraq. And when I read the
foreign policy page on your website, I was first taken back a little but then I gave it some thought and I realized one has to pay very close
attention to all the words that you wrote on that page. Now could you please explain your foreign policy position in getting our military back
home, not just from Iraq but from other parts of the world?
Candidate: Well, the Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution makes it very clear what the numerated functions of the Congress are
and Article One, excuse me Article 2 makes it very clear what the numerated functions of the President are. And it gives, the Constitution
gives to the Congress, not to the President, the power to declare war. Now what that means is if only the Congress can declare war then that
also means that the President cannot commit acts of war, that we’re being committed to a war that he doesn’t have the power to declare. Now,
the President however is the Commander In Chief of the military at all times, you know, and that includes peacetime. And the Commander In
Chief as well as the Congress are charged with providing the common defense of the United States. Which means that at any moment that we
might be under threat, the President can act to defend us and our citizens no matter where we are in the world, our citizens and our property.
However, to act beyond the scope of immediate defense, i.e. to switch to offense which would include things like retaliatory strikes, invasions
and so forth, those things would be recognized by the international body of nations as acts of war. And since Article One Section Eight makes
it clear that only Congress can declare war, then it simply follows that the President cannot initiate those actions that would result in a war. And
so that’s the cornerstone of my foreign policy philosophy is that the President and the Congress act within the Constitution itself and not be
stepping outside of those roles and creating horrible future legal and constitutional precedents that can then be manipulated and controlled
by future leadership who don’t have the same intentions as the people who broke it in the first place.
Host: Let’s go to the Second Amendment. I grew up in Europe where guns are basically a no-no, so I’m not one who particularly like them,
however, I have to admit that you make a very strong argument for retaining the right to bear arms despite the push by many to take that right
away from us citizens under the banner of “security”. Would you please explain that position?
Candidate: Most of it is constitutional position. The Second Amendment is very clear that the liberty to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. And in our founders’ time, the first line of law enforcement defense came from the individual citizen. The public at that time and for
a long time afterwards, actually all the way up until the recent modern era, the public was an armed public. And so the very first line of
defense against, you know, that low level type, that individual crime if you will, that was provided by the citizens themselves because they
were armed and they can defend themselves. Only if there was a need for a second level of forcement of the peace, that was when the
citizens turned to their elected law enforcement representative and that key is that this person is elected and that is the sheriff. And even then,
for the sheriff to execute those police powers that have been given to him by the electorate, he had to exercise them in a very legal and
constitutional way because the people he was going to go arrest were also armed so he had to make sure that he was carrying out things in
the correct way. So when we shift gears into the way things are now, the public is not as armed as it once was and we’ve become a lot more
reliant on a police state to provide that first line of security. However, we see continually that just relying upon the police is not always going to
be and most of the time it’s not going to be what prevents that harm coming to us in that immediate fashion. It’s our ability to defend ourselves
at the immediate point of crime occurring, and unfortunately there’s a voice within the modern body politic that says, “ Well, you know, only the
police should be trusted to carry guns, only the police are trained enough, and have an even temper enough.” But by now, folks, we should
have seen the lies of that. We see numerous examples of police abuse, police brutality, excessive use of force. We can no longer sit back
and simply believe that we can hand over the role, the job of our individual security into the hands of someone just because they’re wearing a
uniform and allowed legally to carry a gun. That was never the intention of the founders. It’s something that’s happened only within the last 50
or 60 years. We need to take back and reassert our Second Amendment rights to be the first line of defense against crime and I think if we
were to do that, we would have a lot more polite society because criminals in general would walk around with the expectation that everyone is
armed.
Host: You indicated also in your website, if I read this correctly, that it’s also another way of check and balances with our own government
system.
Candidate: That is correct. That is exactly what our founders intended was that it would be very hard to exercise tyranny against an armed
population. And so therefore they intended that the last line of defense against tyranny being perpetrated against the American people would
be the American people themselves with the power to defend themselves from unconstitutional actions.
Host: Let’s get to our next topic. Your position on our monetary policy is that the Federal Reserve Act and the Coinage Act of 1965 are
unconstitutional and that it needs to be repealed by Congress. Would you please explain this and furthermore how realistically can that even
be done?
Candidate: Well, the Article One Section Eight states that the Congress and only the Congress has the authority to coin money, to create
credit, and to run our monetary policy. Unfortunately, in the early 1900s the Congress delegated that authority to the Federal Reserve and
ever since then whenever there’s anything that goes wrong in our financial system or with our monetary policy, the Congress simply points at
the Federal Reserve and says it’s their fault. However, that doesn’t suffice because the Constitution places that responsibility with the
Congress, so whether they delegate it or not, the buck still stops with them. And unfortunately we have gravitated to a system of fiat currency
which isn’t backed by anything. And our founders knew how detrimental that could be. In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War there were
massive amount of war debts to be paid, the Continental Congress issued Continental Dollars and there was nothing backing them. There’s
runaway inflation rates and so when they wrote the Constitution and had it ratified, they wanted to make sure that that was no longer a device
that the government could rely on, i.e. the debasement and devaluation of the people’s money through a fiat currency. Unfortunately, in the
last 100 years, we’ve slowly allowed the real value behind our currency to be replaced with a fiat currency that isn’t backed by anything which
can be controlled by a private entity which is the Federal Reserve. It can be manipulated to create bubbles in business cycles, all this power
in the hands of a group of bankers who are not even being fully controlled by the Congress as the Constitution would require that the
Congress be in charge of those things. So what we need to do is we need to repeal those laws that passed that power from the Congress to
someone else. Put it back in the hands of the Congress where when they take action that apply to our money and our credit, that they can be
held somatically accountable as they are now being held. See right now we see a lesson in the Congress being held politically accountable
by the waves and waves of public sentiment, standing up, going to tea parties, going to town hall meetings, about the bailouts, about the
health care reform bill. See, that is the type of political accountability that Congress is supposed to be held to. Then we insist that the
Congress reassert control over our money and credit. Then when maybe things that are wrong with it, they can be held politically accountable
for that, the way we see them being held politically accountable for the bailout votes, and for their health care bill.
Host: Yeah, absolutely. Now Mr. Harris, this is the first time you are running and this as you well know, this can be a brutal job. What made
you decide to run anyway?
Candidate: What made me decide to run is that, you know, I have slowly began to educate myself on a lot of these issues and had noticed that
my own local representative had a very horrible conservative voting record. It wasn’t really conservative at all, had a 50% liberty index rating,
and so I wasn’t too happy with my representative. I had been volunteering to work at the Republican Party Headquarters in Cleveland County
where I live, and then came the bailout vote. Unfortunately, yes my representative is from my own party. He’s a Republican but he voted for
the bailout and that was just the final straw that broke it for me. And I went around to some other senior statesmen in my party and
encouraged them to run. Nobody wanted to run against him because he was an incumbent Republican and nobody wanted to take that step,
or to instigate the party in that way. And when I talked to my mentor, Roger Warren, the GOP Chairman at that time for Cleveland County, he
said to me, “Well, listen RJ, if no one else is going to do it, you need to do it.” It’s not a matter of what the party is going to do about it, but what
are the citizens going to do about it. And after thinking about that for a few months, I realized that, you know, we can’t always pick and choose
the time and place in which we are called by our founders to stand up and defend freedom and liberty. We don’t get to choose that time, but I
can clearly feel that that time is being chosen for me. And so I made that step, and I made the decision to go ahead to challenge Tom Cole
and to try to provide the people of the Oklahoma’s Fourth District with a real alternative in August of 2010 to choose between, you know, an
establishment supported, socialist progressive Republican, or to choose me, a Constitutional Conservative who is going to Congress knowing
what the functions of the Federal Government are supposed to be and determined to serve our Republic, restore our Constitution, and (???).
Host: Well, you’ve got a tough job coming at you and you’re going to need some support so how may citizens and supporters help and
contact you or your campaign?
Candidate: Well they can reach us through our website which is RJHarris2010.com and there you will find the ability to contact the campaign
manager, his phone number, the email address. You can sign up for the newsletter. You can find us on Facebook. You can find us on
MySpace. And there’s also a place for people that are looking for candidates from their area, for Liberty candidates. They’re popping up all
over the country and there’s a great website out there called RetakeCongress.com and also the 912Candidates.org website. If you’re looking
for candidates that have been willing to take the 912 Candidates Oath, which I have. As a matter of fact, I was the very first 912 Candidate in
the entire country and you can find those candidates from your state at 912Candidates.org and I would encourage everyone out there that
listens to this that, you know, even if there’s not a candidate from your district running, find a candidate through these websites or through the
internet that is speaking truth power, and is speaking a message of Constitutional Conservatism that you can get behind. Go to them,
volunteer for them, blog for them on the internet because, folks, it doesn’t matter whether you live in Maine or Oklahoma or Hawaii. Another
vote of U. S. Congress to support our Constitution and to restore itm and to save our Republic, is another vote for you no matter what district
you live in. And we need these Liberty candidates to stand up and take this fight to the establishment and retake our Congress on behalf of
the people.
Host: And to add to that wonderful list of resources, let’s also add this show because we are focusing strictly on the 912 Candidates, the
912ProjectShow.com. Mr. Harris, thank you very much for being on 912ProjectShow.com today.
Candidate: All right. It was a pleasure and thank you so much for having me on. I look forward to being on again in the future any time you’d
like.
Host: Okay, wonderful. Thank you.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Interview Transcript
| Click arrow to listen to interview |
Welcome to The 9-12 Show...
| Show Host Danielle Hampson |
| Transcript Copying Rule |
| Support the 9-12 movement Join our email list |
| © Copyright 2009 eBroadcastMedia.com a division of KDResources, Inc. - All rights reserved |
| INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS available by clicking on links below |
Members of the media
may use this transcript
in whole or part under
the following
conditions:
1. Prior to copying the
transcript, you must
email us:
a- the name of the
publication where the
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
the following
conditions:
1. Prior to copying the
transcript, you must
email us:
a- the name of the
publication where the
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.