Ron Paul Trumps in Last Night’s Debate

Ron Paul trumped in last night’s Republican Presidential Candidate Debate in New Hampshire.  His views on Iraq and freedom were shining beacons amidst the black smoke the other candidates emitted.

As the rest of the GOP hopefuls tighten their chains to the war wagon heading over a cliff, Paul’s views will propel him forward.

Every month that Paul remains in the race, he becomes more dangerous to the Establishment.

Ron Paul  is the Buster Douglas candidate.  Douglas was a 42 to 1 underdog when he fought undefeated Mike Tyson in 1990.  The experts thought that the only question was whether Tyson would knock him out in the first, second, or third round.

But Douglas fought tough from the first round.  In round ten, he caught Tyson with a flurry of punches that ended Iron Mike’s reign.

Here are some highlights from last night’s show: 
MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, another gun issue for you if you will. You have
said that the 9/11 attackers might have had second thoughts if they’d felt that
some of the passengers aboard the airplanes would — might have been armed. We
have seen airplanes — airflights diverted because people heard Arabic on
planes, because they heard Muslims praying. What do you think it would do to the
travel industry of this country if passengers felt others were carrying guns
aboard, sir?
REP. PAUL: Well, first off, you’re quoting me incorrectly.
MR. GOLER: I’m sorry.
REP. PAUL: I said that responsibility for protecting passengers falls with the
airline, not the government, not the passengers. The airline’s responsible for
the aircraft and the passengers.
If we wouldn’t have been dependent on the federal government to set all the
rules, which meant no guns and no resistance, then the terrorists may well have
had second thoughts because the airlines would have had the responsibility. But
we assumed the government was going to take care of us.
After 9/11, instead of moving toward the direction of personal responsibility
and private property and Second Amendment, we moved in the opposite direction.
We turned it over to the federal government, and look at the mess we have now at
airports. I mean, the airlines — private industry protects their property all
the time. People who haul around money in armored trucks protect their — their
money all the time. But here is one example when the federal government was
involved and they messed it up. And if we put the responsibility on the right
people, respected the Second Amendment, I sincerely believe there would have
been a lot less chance of 9/11 ever happening. (Bell sounds.) (Cheers,
applause.)
***
MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul — (interrupted by cheers, applause) —
Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What
about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we
pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who have
staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region
to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?
REP. PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it
would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by
oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said. Why not ask
the people — (interrupted by cheers) — why not ask the people who advise
not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.
Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the
region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons
given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don’t want
our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security
to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and
threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.
I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It’s the policy that
is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in 30 more
and reducing by five, totally irrelevant. We need a new foreign policy that said
we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country,

****
MR. WALLACE: So, Congressman Paul, and I’d like you to take 30 seconds to answer
this, you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al
Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (Laughter.)
REP. PAUL: No! (Cheers, applause.) I’m saying — (laughter) — I’m saying we
should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war
— (cheers, applause) — we should not go to war without a declaration. We
should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive
invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under
international law. That’s where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy.

***
On getting out of Iraq:
REP. PAUL: The American people didn’t go in. A few people advising this
administration, a small number of people called the neoconservative hijacked our
foreign policy. They’re responsible, not the American people. They’re not
responsible. We shouldn’t punish them. (Cheers, applause.)
MR. HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can’t be divided. We have to be
one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single
country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America.
(Cheers.)
REP. PAUL: No. When we make a mistake — (interrupted by applause) — when we
make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people through their representatives
to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake! (Cheers, applause.)

****
MR. WALLACE: Perhaps you can tell us. But if you get rid of the CIA, let alone
the FBI, how would President Paul have any idea, any intelligence of what our
enemies, foreign and domestic, are up to?
REP. PAUL: Well, you might ask a better question. Before 9/11, we were spending
$40 billion a year, and the FBI was producing numerous information about people
being trained on airplanes to fly on but not land in, and they totally ignored
them. So it’s the inefficiency of the bureaucracy that is the problem. So
increasing this with the Department of Homeland Security is spending more money,
doesn’t solve the problem. Yes, we have every right in the world to know
something about intelligence gathering, but we have to have intelligent people
interpreting this information. (Cheers, applause.)
But, you know, just going for increasing presidential powers, as has been
discussed, is rather disturbing to me. This whole idea that we’re supposed to
sacrifice liberty for security — we were advised against that. Don’t we
remember that when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both? That’s
what’s happening in this country today. (Cheers, applause.) We have a national
ID card on our doorstep. It’s being implemented right now. We have FISA courts,
we have warrantless searches, we’ve lost habeas corpus, we’ve had secret prisons
around the world, and we have torture going on. (Bell.) That’s un-American, and
we need to use the power of the presidency to get it back in order in order to
take care of us and protect this country and our liberties.