Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Ron Paul on Fox News Center Seat Special Report Online 10/26/2011

November 16, 2011 by  

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Ron Paul on Fox News Center Seat Special Report Online 10/26/2011”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Msgt Steven D Perry USMC Ret

    Ron Paul just won my vote…….

    • jamie

      I think he is a Good Man, who wants to help us.I Pray that we choose the rights Person for the Job.

  • Carrie

    I think he is a good man, with logical and sound political ideas. I will also be voting for him!

  • bill

    Very clever for Fox news to do damage control but the fact as I see it,All MSMs are guilty of hidden agendas and slanted non objective reporting.So therefore
    all cable services will remain canceled until they change their policies.

  • Angelique

    The USA has statute on immigration. Why are our reps. ignoring it because the illegals are crossing in from Mexico? These people are NOT all seeking work, some are criminals,terrorists, & just want all the govt. freebees they can not get in their home country. In ignoring our own laws, we are sending a message that this poractice is O.K., & all those waiting for visas, citizenship are fools. ALL THIS NONSENCE FOR FUTURE VOTES for legislators to keep their govt. careers at a very heavy cost. We had a working Republic with a Constitution that was a beacon for all the world untill these Marxists began slaming it for a system that has not worked anywhere it exists. These 99% don’t have a clue what they are talking about & protesting….wake up & do some research! Little sheep who parrot some idiot who wants to stir the pot for an agenda. Go home!

  • patrick H.T. paine

    “To conquer, first DIVIDE!”

    With the exception of “bringing the troops home”, everything else was
    nebulous……in short, no actual solutions…..

    The most interesting point was….the call for “deregulation”, which is why we ARE, where we ARE!!!!!!!!

    And the description “intelligent economist” is an oxymoron….there are no “intelligent economists”…..the austrian school is simply the least damaging………..and based on an imcomplete model. ( it seeks to address a known problem, with a failed solution…..since there is no such thing as “sound money”……..and once you introduce money
    into a system ( as a medium of exchange ) you invite mischief.

    “The road to HELL is paved with good intentions.” Mr. Paul’s “good intentions” are NOT ENOUGH……of course, none of these idiots asked any real questions, because they are equally clueless…..or maybe….?

    What all these people have in common, of course, is that they are all
    doing WAY better, than most of you….could just be me though?

    “Do not ask for whom the bell tolls……..”

    • j

      The fact of the matter is… if something is going wrong you can’t fix it by continuing to do what you have been doing… You MUST make changes. Dr. Ron Pauls ideas are for real, tangible change that CAN help the current situation. All the other candidates want to continue on this Nazi type blitzkreig of a world / government takeover which will eventually just bury us all. The educated will vote for Dr.Ron Paul.

    • Caroline

      Patrick, you state Ron Paul has “no real solutions.” Do you think any of the other candidates have better solutions? His solutions will balance the budget and reduce taxes. Who else do you think will do what is needed (and not be bought out by private interests) to bring this country back to fiscal responsibility?

  • Jim

    get rid of tax!?! yeah

  • s c

    If Obummer had any integrity or character (he doesn’t), he’d demand that all illegals who cross a border take the time to clean up the many tons of TRASH they bring into America. So where are all the tree-huggers who care about Mama Earth? Hey, Obummer, that would be an easy way to create some JOBS!
    If Obummer had any integrity or character (he doesn’t), he close the borders (bring our military home) and stop making our military act like the world’s prostitute cop.
    If Obummer had any integrity or character (he doesn’t), he’d RESIGN and give Rahmbo some competition in Chicago. Maybe Ron Paul could coach Obummer so Obummer could at least ACT like he “cares” about America – instead of acting like the reincarnation of a closet Stalin.

  • Mrs. N

    I am ashamed to say that the last election I wrote this man off completely. I have now studied the U.S. Constitution and The Declaration of Independence, and I now realize that Dr. Ron Paul is the ONLY person running for President who wants this country to be the representative republic that it once was.

    Dr. Paul says that he loved delivering babies during his years as an obstetrician, and I am going to love voting for him in our next election. Dr. Ron Paul for President, 2012!

  • Verus Langham

    I sincerely wish that all would access the speech Dr. Paul made at a prestigious college/university dealing with his stand on these important issue – but foremost his explanation of his motivation backing his iron-clad belief in the immutable rights of the unborn: he was the very personification of American exceptionalism with respect to his valuation for all human life. On this special I saw some resistance on his part to “come clean” in the defense of his stated platform and on those whom he’d entrust as cabinet members – he sidestepped both with great skill without deflecting their importance and I must take his side to the degree he was shielding himself against (not what his inquisition panel might assail, but) the MSM’s use of his every word to further attack him and debase his authoritative and positive remarks that mean so very much to his own success. I have every confidence in most of his ideas… a little troubled on his stance on the federal government stepping aside for states rights on the issues of abortion and drug legislation (I do not feel he was wrong in his stand that it is the Constitutional thing to do; but at the same time feel strongly many states might actually adopt permissive laws that would fail ultimately to protect their respective citizens from harm). I was alarmed to discover his sidestepping the “birther” issue and giving such a weak justification for his viewpoint… being the intelligent man he is, Dr. Ron Paul seems disinclined to join those of us who consider the very facts of Obama’s mother (though American born) not having arrived at the legal age for citizenship at the moment of Obama’s birth… if his grandmother’s narrative of Stanley’s inability to gain transport from Kenya to Hawaii due to her soon-delivery (airlines refused her due to the laws governing transport of one so far along in the pregnancy).. that leading to a delivery in Mombassa, Kenya (grandmother stated under oath she was there in the delivery room at time of birth). Also, with all that has been documented concerning the facts of Obama’s fraudulent rise to, first to U.S. Senator and later to POTUS, NEVER HAVING BEEN VETTED by his own party that is prerequisite to nomination for either seat… it seems most impossible that this mostly well-informed U.S. Congressman (Ron Paul) and in many cases brilliant, could have cast a deaf ear to the very notion of the birthers’ claims much less the details of why and how we have come to accept the truths of the many highly respected researchers who’ve shared all this mountain of evidence against Obama… I scratch my head now and marvel at his inability to elucidate with conviction on this historic issue of a non-American citizen usurping the office of POTUS – IT IS THE SINGULARLY MOST OBVIOUS CLUE AS TO WHY OBAMA WORKS SO VERY HARD TO FIGHT THE STATES ON THE ILLEGAL ALIENS/IMMIGRANTS ISSUE (HE is one himself)… a fairly good clue as to the agenda to destroy our system of Capitalism and our Constitutional Republic, both of which he clearly hates as much if not more than his Marxist father. Not many politicians want to engage the enemy and cut off its head by taking up the gauntlet that is the birther issue and its imperative for action now – not in 2012.

    • Caroline

      Versus, in your post you state “feel strongly many states might actually adopt permissive laws that would fail ultimately to protect their respective citizens from harm.” I feel Ron Paul is right that the federal government should get out of the drug and abortion issue. It is much easier for individual states to make laws and enforce them for their own citizens than the entire country can. And the citizens of a state could eliminate politicians easier if they didn’t like the legislation and results. It’s easier to lobby your local politicians than to complain to the President! Also, do you really think that if drugs were not regulated by the federal government and was instead controlled by the states that the states would legalize the “dangerous” drugs? And as Ron Paul states, do you think that just because a drug became “legal” that would mean everyone would then start taking drugs (I know I wouldn’t)? He is right — people don’t take drugs because they are legal, they take drugs because they are illegal — they like the added rush! Do more people drink alcohol and get drunk now that prohibition has ended rather than when prohibition existed? Now there is a legal way to obtain the alcohol and there are age regulations. During prohibition, there was still alcohol and hidden “speak easys” that were not regulated. All they had to do was bribe the local law enforcement and they were relatively safe! Making alcohol illegal did not eliminate any problem — it only made it worse with unscrupulous people profiting from the perceived lack. Make drugs “less illegal” and there would be less profit incentive for the drug dealers as it would cause the prices of drugs to be lowered and they would be taxed. Finally, it’s ok for people to smoke cigarettes (also a drug) and take prescription drugs like candy if okayed by a doctor. Is that any “safer” considering all the warnings on prescription drug labels? I was on Prednisone for 10 years — that’s got to be one of the worse mood altering drugs available legally (you didn’t want to cross me or I would verbally slash you within an inch of your life when I was on that stuff). All Ron Paul is saying is get the feds out of our business and let the states do their jobs as stated in the Constitution!

  • JON

    Ron Paul has the most substance and straight-forward honesty compared to all the candidates put together. He says what people need to hear even if they are uncomfortable hearing it.

  • csh

    Verus, I do agree with your points, and at the same time I believe Ron Paul would at least be open to an investigation of Obama’s citizenship issue if the people wanted to pursue it, because he first and foremost is an advocate for the people and their rights… so he would allow them to make it an issue, even if he did not make it an issue himself.

    On the issue of the unborn… it does bother me that he seems to want to make that a states issue when our constitution very clearly states that it is the duty of the Federal government to PROTECT our unalienable rights. Now then, the judicial system intervened where it did not belong because only congress is supposed to legislate law… not the judicial system. Since the law is already written that our rights are to be “protected” and not “decided” by the federal government, then it has an obligation to protect an individual’s right to life… no matter who it is that wants to do away with it. By allowing anyone to simply decide the fate of ones life the federal government recoiling from their duty of protecting the rights of an innocent life, regardless of age, and allowing another to determine the fate of a babies life or death, it has failed in its lawful direction and succumbed being an accomplice to the deaths of millions of innocent lives…. and will be held accountable to our creator who is recognized in our founding documents as being the one who gave us our inalienable rights in the 1st place. So “IF” Ron Paul is to honor our documents, our Creator, and our Republic, once he takes office, he MUST recognize the action of the judicial system in the Roe v Wade decision as being unconstitutional and void of any merit. The federal government needs to take back the position constitutionally of protecting all of our rights for all Americans…. First and foremost being “the RIGHT to LIFE”… then liberty… and then the pursuit of happiness.
    If he is standing for the our Republic and our constitution, then he can’t just pick and choose from the 3 rights listed, above. They all go together. If he stands for liberty, then he equally if not more should recognize life. It was considered First for a reason.

    That said, I still think Ron Paul will do more to MOVE us all in the direction needed, to finally get us to the Republic we are intended to have.

  • csh

    Summing this up a little better….
    Verus, I do agree with your points, and at the same time I believe Ron Paul would at least be open to an investigation of Obama’s citizenship, if the people wanted to pursue it, because he, first and foremost, is an advocate for the people and their rights… so he would allow them to make it an issue, even if he did not make it an issue himself.

    Regarding the unborn… it does bother me that RP seems to want to make that a states issue, when our constitution very clearly states that it is the DUTY of the Federal government to PROTECT our unalienable rights. It’s their duty to protect our rights, not decide if we should have them or not, or to pass that decision on to someone else, but to protect them.

    The judicial system intervened where it did not belong, (Roe vs.. Wade) for only congress is to legislate law. So, since Congress did NOT legislate a new law, the existing law technically still stands. It has never been overturned by Congress, and they can’t do it because they are obligated to protect the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    A single judge…. one person…. made an unconstitutional decision, both in the process and in ethics to allow another person to decide the fate of life and death of still another innocent person, a small child, a baby…. in Latin, a “fetus”. By allowing one to simply decide the fate of another’s life, no matter who it is, the federal government is recoiling from their duty of protecting the rights of innocent life. Their is no age discrimination in the application of our inalienable rights. Our rights are recognized to be from our Creator and are to be protected by our federal government.

    RP, being a warrior for the Constitution must consider this…
    1. To pass off the federal government’s responsibility to protect the right of life, and allow a judge, or the states to decide if they want to honor that right, is horribly wrong.
    2. Just like it was wrong for Congress to pass off their responsibility to coin money to an unconstitutional centralized bank…..
    3. Just like it was wrong for Congress to allow the president to decide if we should go to war. The decision constitutionally lies with Congress to either declare it or not,
    and if not, we don’t go.

    Taking responsibility constitutionally means just that…. Being responsible.

    The RIGHT to LIFE,
    pursuit of happiness.
    They all work together. If RP wants this nation to once again protect the right of liberty, it must also protect the right of life.

    That said, I still think Ron Paul will do more to MOVE us all in the direction needed, to finally get us to the Republic we are intended to have.

  • Everyday Politics

    I see it took three weeks to post this on the Internet, but I am glad you did. Ron Paul seems to have a lot of good things to say. I hope his reality is equal to his words.

  • Charlie

    I cannot believe you people!!! Ron Paul cannot even complete a sentence without changing the subject or his choice of words-to try to restate or get his point across. I have no idea what he really stands for, or what he is trying to say!!! I hate that he does not support Israel and also that he thinks we should “make friends” with the Iranians and our enemies!! Do you people realize that Israel is the ONLY country IN THE WORLD that is fighting for its survival??Give me a break! Obama would chew him up and spit him out in a debate!


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.