A Quiet Revolutionary Video

(via RedStateEclectic)

Excluding Ron Paul from a "tax relief" candidates’ forum is like excluding Batman from an Anti-Riddler Convention

Thomas Woods digs deeper into why Ron Paul wasn't invited to the Iowa Christian Alliance and Iowans for Tax Relief Republican candidates’ forum.

The American Conservative: Lone Star

Cover story: Maverick Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul finds that being right is the one thing his party won’t forgive.

Brad Porter on the importance of Ron Paul's campaign

Brad Porter at the Crossed Pond explains why Ron Paul's campaign is so important:

Anyway, that I’m in it is obviously something of a thrill, but I think what I’m most pleased about is the article itself, and that reporters and papers out there are beginning to raise their eyebrows to the Paul campaign and its surprising, bubbling strength. The reason I gave the money, and what Vargas got at exactly, is not just because I want Ron Paul to win (though, of course, I do), but because I feel his message is so vitally important at this point in American political history that anything I can do in whatever small way to help amplify it, to get it just a little bit louder and with just a little farther reach, I’m thankful to do. More than thankful, I’m grateful. Shamelessly, breathlessly grateful. It’s not been so often, in the last several years, that the liberty message has found much purchase, that we’ve had the opportunity to throw our support behind somebody who champions it so humbly, so diligently, so forcefully. And, so necessarily. I don’t mean to take that opportunity for granted. I consider us to be lucky beyond measure that we’ve gotten it at all.

For the record I DO think Ron Paul can win. I think that his is the ultimate American message, the ultimate positive, uniting thrust of what the entire political experiment of this country is about. I think Dr. Paul finally brings out of the cellar and into the light what freedom really, truly means, how it’s practiced, and how vigilant we have to remain to protect it.

Two months ago, if you had asked me if Ron Paul had a chance at the nomination, I would have talked about how he SHOULD have a chance, in a perfect world, but how he probably won’t, given the disgraceful state of today’s Republican party, and how uninterested it often seems in its own legacy, its own principles.

Now, though, anything seems possible.

But what I wanted to convey, and what Vargas intuitively understood, is that to me (and, I suspect, to Paul), whatever the fate of the campaign, win or lose, what’s important is that message. America needs to hear it. America deserves to hear it. America is lucky, blessed to hear it.

Let’s help Ron Paul make sure it gets out there.

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Presidential candidate Ron Paul drawing diverse crowds

Mike Wereschagin has an article about Ron Paul in this Sunday's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

"It's amazing to me" that voters keep re-electing Paul, said Dude Payne, a Democratic county commissioner in Brazoria County, where Paul lives. Paul's biggest asset -- besides his slogan, "The Taxpayer's Best Friend" -- probably is his consistency, said Payne, who pointed out that even after the controversial 2003 Texas redistricting added more Democratic voters to Paul's district, he beat a Democrat with about 60 percent of the vote.

"I don't think anybody can beat him," Payne said. "He pretty much votes no on any kind of pork."

Reason: Can a libertarian Republican appeal to Democrats?

Brian Doherty (author of Radicals for Capitalism) has an article in Reason Online in which he writes: “One of the keys to why Paul should have wider appeal is that while he is certainly very libertarian, he is in many ways more federalist and constitutionalist than libertarian in a strict sense.”

Transcript: Ron Paul on the Tucker Carlson Show

TUCKER CARLSON (host): [Joining us now is a] Congressman from Texas, Ron Paul. Congressman, thanks for joining us.

REP. RON PAUL: Thank you, good to be with you.

CARLSON: So the conventional explanation for the problems between Israel and Palestine is — partly, anyway — the United States doesn't intervene enough, we're not engaged enough in the peace process. Do you buy that? Should we be engaged in that peace process?

PAUL: Well, I don't think the fact that we're involved has caused the problem as much as I think they're naturally enemies and they're going to fight and they have been fighting for a long time and they're going to continue to fight. But I think our presence there doesn't do much good, and it's not going to solve the problem. You know, it reminds me of that statement Ronald Reagan made in his memoirs when he was explaining why he left Lebanon in the early 1980s. And he said the irrationality of the politics of that region made him change his policies there. And he brought the Marines home, and we left. But he just sort of threw up his arms and said it was beyond his ability to solve those problems.

CARLSON: But we take a side in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, broadly, we send billions to Israel, but we also send money to the Palestinians, but essentially we're on Israel's side. Most Americans think we ought to be. Do you think we ought to be?

PAUL: I think we should be on the side of neutrality and friendship with everybody and not subsidize either side. I mean, in the Middle East, we're strong allies, and we subsidize Israel, but we've been propping up the Saudi government for more than 50 years, since World War II. And it sort of fits my argument that intervention doesn't lend itself to a peaceful world, especially for us. We lose a lot of men and women now being killed, and a lot of money being spent, and there's no more peace than if we weren't there. Matter of fact, I think Israel would do quite well without us there. They'd probably have a peace treaty with Syria. They want to talk peace with Syria, and we interfere with that process and say, "Oh no, you can't talk to the Syrians." So, Israel would have a great incentive to work out agreements with some of its neighbors. Now the Palestinian affair is a lot tougher than Syria, but I think they've worked out an agreement — of course, with our help — with Egypt, but there would be a tremendous incentive for Israel to work with Syria, come up with it, work with the Arab League. So, I don't think we add a whole lot to solving that problem over there.

CARLSON: A new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll finds that 52 percent of Americans — more than half of Americans — want the Democrats to take over the White House in this upcoming election. Obviously, bad news for you, running as a Republican. But doesn't it speak to the larger trend, that shows pretty clearly Americans want more from their government. They expect the government to do more for them than they expected, say, 15 years ago. How do you reverse that trend?

PAUL: Well, I think that's the real contest. Because obviously the people that work for me and campaign for me want exactly the opposite, they want to get the government off their backs. And, you know, 52 percent might want a Democratic president, but that doesn't sound all that strong. I mean, right now, the Democratic congress isn't rating very high. That's a healthy sign that the American people are waking up and they're getting disgusted with what they're getting. So, maybe they will come to realize that we need less government, not more government. If they're unhappy, we can hardly argue that we've had minimal government over these past 50 years, all we do is have an expansion of government. And that fits my argument that we have too much government and we need a lot less.

CARLSON: But your government, as you just put it, you want government off our backs, you want government to stop interfering in people's lives. But isn't interference that natural consequence of government services? In other words, when someone does something for you, he's by definition interfering in your life. So if you want less government interference, you're going to get fewer government services. You're not going to have government-provided health care, for one thing.

PAUL: Yeah, you know, this is the whole thing. When you get something from government, that's all they talk about. The politician brags about it and the people who receive it, they feel good. Unless the services don't arrive on time, like in Katrina. You know, the services didn't work out so well. So I think what we forget are the people who have to pay. You know, there's the other half of the equation. Yes, the people who have to pay, and the young people, especially today, who are sick and tired of the mess and who are inheriting this debt and inheriting this war, they have to pay. So services always come with a cost, whether it's direct taxation, future taxation, borrowing, interest payments, or a debased currency, and that is inflation.

CARLSON: OK, then would you be willing to say out loud into the camera that the people of New Orleans ought to be responsible for building their own city, that it's not the responsibility of the rest of the country?

PAUL: Well, that's the way it's supposed to be originally under the Constitution. It's only very recent years, in the last 10 to 15 years that it became central economic planning from the federal government and it hasn't worked that well. I —

CARLSON: So would you support a return? I mean, I guess, my point is, if you say something like that out loud, it is taken by most people as callous, as mean. Would you be willing to endorse a system in which regions or cities or states are responsible for their own disaster relief and the federal government just says, "I'm sorry, we're not getting involved"?

PAUL: Well I think it's callous and mean to depend on the federal government to go down there and make a mess out of trying to save New Orleans. They did such a lousy job. So, central economic planning doesn't work. It's sort of like saying, "Are you going to be mean and not be a socialist? Aren't you going to take care of poor people, starving people? Well, socialism doesn't work. Central economic planning doesn't work. And you know, in the past, a long time ago, in 1900, Galveston was wiped off the map. And they rebuilt and FEMA didn't exist and the sea-wall that they built is still there. So it isn't like it wouldn't happen, it just may happen faster, cheaper, and more efficiently instead of federal agents getting in the way, taking the guns from the people, not letting private owners get to their property. I get so many complaints about FEMA once we have an emergency in our district.

CARLSON: You've been to a number, 3 or 4 Republican debates so far. What's it like backstage? Who do you like? If you weren't voting for yourself, who would you vote for among the other 9 or 10 guys running?

PAUL: Well, you know, I have a tough time, because my philosophy is strict Constitutionalist and anti-war and pro-free markets. And nobody quite fits that build, and probably one of the reasons why I'm in this race. So it'd be very hard for me to get enthusiastic about anybody who's supporting this war and not re-assessing it and making an effort to get our troops home and not supporting the idea that you don't go to war without declaring war and win them and get them over with and be more precise and put more responsibility on the Congress. So I'd have a hard time picking one of them right now.

CARLSON: Well how about Giuliani? He's the front-running overwhelmingly if you ask Republican primary voters. Would you vote for him?

PAUL: I'd have a lot of trouble. I think he's an authoritarian. I think he would use government way out of proportion to what the Constitution intended —

CARLSON: He's an authoritarian? What do you mean by that?

PAUL: That means he likes to use government force. He wouldn't mind using some of these laws that have been put on the books since 9/11, the PATRIOT act, and the rejection of habeas corpus. I think I sense that among the whole group, that they're quite willing. And of course, the other night, we had this debate — to a degree, a debate — discussion on whether we would use a nuclear first strike against a country that has no nuclear weapons and has not attacked us. And they're all for it. So that, to me, is difficult. And yet I feel comfortable as a Republican because I think I speak for traditional, conservative Republicans, and I defend the Constitution.

CARLSON: Ron Paul of Texas, running for President. I appreciate you coming on, Congressman.

PAUL: Thank you very much.

Ron Paul now most-watched GOP candidate on YouTube

According to the graph at TechPresident, Ron Paul yesterday passed Mitt Romney to become the most-watched GOP candidate on YouTube. As of June 13, 2007, Paul has 1 171 842 views to Romney's 1 160 705. If current trends continue, Paul should be the most-watched candidate of any party within the next 2-3 weeks.

CNN: Ron Paul polling at (3 ± 5.5)% in NH

A CNN poll of NH voters released today has Ron Paul at 3%. CNN has an article on the poll results.

Romney 28%
Giuliani 20%
McCain 20%
Fred Thompson 11%
Gingrich 4%
Paul 3%
Brownback 2%
Huckabee 2%
Tancredo *
Cox 0%
Gilmore 0%
Hunter 0%
Tommy Thompson 0%
Someone else 1%
No opinion 8%

Judge Andrew Napolitano endorses Ron Paul at FFF 2007

A 75 second video clip of FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano endorsing Ron Paul at the Future of Freedom Foundation's 2007 Conference.

Napilotano spoke from 7:45 pm - 8:30 pm EDT on Sunday, June 3, 2007 at the Hyatt Regency Reston in Reston, Virginia. The entire speech is on YouTube in four parts: 1 2 3 4.

Ron Paul at FFF: "Nonintervention: The Original Foreign Policy"

Watch Ron Paul has Ron Paul's 45-minute speech at the Future of Freedom Foundation's 2007 Conference. It was called “Nonintervention: The Original Foreign Policy”, and was delivered from 6:00 pm – 6:45 pm EDT on Sunday, June 3, 2007 at the Hyatt Regency Reston in Reston, Virginia .

This is Poignant

Arlen Parsa tries to dissaude progressives from supporting Ron Paul but, as usual, it just ends up making Paul look better.

In an effort to refute them, Parsa quotes several blog comments from progressives who were inspired by Ron Paul:

• "[No politicians] are going to “do” any of what they promise. At least it’s a relief to hear someone tell the truth."
  
• "[Paul] inspired me. Not for a political view or an issue, but because he conveys what he thinks in an articulate, thoughtful, and consistent manner - something we saw none of in the other candidates last night, and something I wish we saw more of in our own candidates. "
  

Parsa tries to lure them back by telling them how much America needs all the federal programs that Paul doesn't support. But it rings hollow. There's something deeper in their yearning for someone honest and principled that Parla's plea just can't reach.

New Hampshire Loves Ron Paul

Hundreds of Ron Paul supporters rally at the June 5th GOP Presidential Debate—and cheer for Dr. Paul at the after party in Manchester.
(via Dick Clark)

FOX News: Ron Paul polling at (2 ± 3)% nationally

2% of the respondents to a June 5-6 FOX News poll would vote for Ron Paul if the 2008 Presidential primary were held today.

(via RedStateEclectic)

Diverse Group Attends Nebraska Ron Paul Meetup

Laura Ebke at RedStateElectic gives us a first-hand account of a Nebraska Ron Paul Meetup on June 6. What struck me most was the broad spectrum of people who attended:

The rest of our group ranged from the high school government teacher who decided he'd been teaching kids about the Constitution long enough that he ought to work for someone who actually supported it; to the Green anthropology student who thought it was important to support someone who actually believed in liberty—even if he wasn't a Green—because if those liberties were infringed upon, he'd never get to promote the Green cause...

CBS: A Texas Libertarian Starts To Make Waves

CBS Public Eye has an article on Ron Paul:

“Paul, love him or hate him, articulates a coherent ideology better than many of his competitors.”

NYT Transcript of the NH GOP Debate

The New York Times has the transcript.

Ron Paul: A walking, talking no-spin zone

Scott, commenting on a Ron Paul article at The Liberty Papers, writes:

“I’ve never seen a candidate that doesn't slip and slide around every question asked. He directly answers it from what his principles are, not what 40 PR people have told him how he should answer each question and how to dodge each question. Don't agree with all his policies, but I think it's more important to get someone willing to do some housecleaning in the White House.”

BBC: Ron Paul, the authentic candidate

Mr Paul's beliefs are out of favour with the modern Republican party but they represent a very important strand of American political thought: Mr Paul is a rational believer in freedom.

He is not, we may surmise, a social conservative, who wants the government to take an interest in what is going on in America's bedrooms. In fact he does not want the government to take an interest in anything much: he wants it gone from people's lives.

He does not want American power to be projected around the world because he does not want American power to be vested in Washington. He prefers the notion that local control, local democracy, local power, is the genius of the American way.

Mess with it and you get 9/11.

Mr Paul speaks, at least in part, for many Republicans who feel their party has been hi-jacked in recent years by two groups who do not really speak for them: the religious conservatives and the neo-conservatives.

Source: BBC, Giving the US minnows their moment, by Justin Webb

LRC Blog Roundup

The good folks over at the LRC blog are on a roll after the June 5 GOP debate:

• Of all the wonderful things Ron Paul had to say in the debate last night, I think the best was his introduction of himself: "I am the champion of the Constitution." Not a champion — the champion.” Mike Tennant
  
• I received an e-mail from a conservative website that is promoting Giuliani's candidacy. They inform me that, for a $100 donation, I can receive a "Rudy" baseball cap. They do not mention how much a "Rudy" brown shirt would cost! — Butler Shaffer
  
• Family Guy on Democracy in Iraq:
  
  

MSNBC: Ron Paul interviewed by Tucker Carlson, June 6 2007

TUCKER CARLSON: It isn't easy standing alone as one of the last, true small-government conservatives in today's Republican Party. Even your colleages are apt to call you names: eccentric, odd, crazy. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas doesn't seem to care. He was at it again last night at the Presidential primary debate in New Hampshire, reminding his party and the country what it used to mean to be a Republican. In previous debates, Dr. Paul has gone after front-runner Rudy Giuliani and his lack of foreign policy experience. He even gave the former mayor a homework assignment on what he and the CIA see as the true causes of terrorism and ill-will toward America. Some were offended; to others, Ron Paul rose instantly to the level of folk hero. He himself joins us now. We are glad to welcome from Capital Hill, physician, presidential hopeful, and Republican congressman, Ron Paul.



CARLSON: I hope you can come on regularly just for a tutorial on what it means to be free, Dr. Paul.

New Hampshire Paulic Radio

Listen to Ron Paul on NHPR's The Exchange on the morning of Tuesday, June 5, 2007.

[39:00]
LAURA KNOY (Host): Let's say that I'm poor, and you're not. That means that you can afford, you know, to get your cancer checked out early, and I might hold off, waiting, because I can't afford it.

REP. RON PAUL: And what you need to do is just go back —

KNOY: The idea is that —

PAUL: Right.

KNOY: When it comes to health, it's not a pure, raw economic issue.

PAUL: It —

KNOY: It's your body —

PAUL: It really can be —

KNOY: It's your life —

PAUL: It really can be. Just look at everything before 1965. I mean, how many people did you... Can you get me any pictures of people just dying in the streets because they couldn't get any medical care? No, there was more wealth, the country was wealthier, there was more generosity, the churches would be running the hospitals. Now everything is the maximum cost. You come to the emergency room now, and especially because of the litigation involved, doctors have to over-order, and if you're not on the government's system, you're put on, and you're charged the maximum. When I was working at the Santa Rosa hospital, the minimum was charged, and if you didn't have any money, you weren't charged at all. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Ron Paul on the Daily Show - June 4, 2007

Ron Paul still polling nationally at (1 ± 3)% as of June 1, 2007

“A Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone May 29-June 1, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,205 adults, including an oversample of African Americans, for a total of 284 black respondents. The results from the full survey have an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points.”

CBN: Ron Paul interviewed by David Brody (May 24, 2007)

Video here.

Ron Paul on WKRO (New Hampshire)

Ron Paul was interviewed on WKRO's The Forum with Tom Finneran this morning.