91 votes

Lew Rockwell: Ron Paul's ‘Secret’ Plans for Continued Leadership For The Liberty Movement

Via the Liberty Crier: Lew Rockwell appears on the Alex Jones show and discusses what’s next for the liberty movements fight against statism. At the beginning of the interview Lew tells us that Ron Paul has big plans for the liberty movement but cannot reveal them until he is out of congress. Lew says that Ron Paul will be more powerful now that he is out of politics.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It really bugs me too

Lew was about to give the name of Tom Woods' book (which is "Nullification - How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century," btw) one of the times AJ interrupted him. Alex deserves lots of credit for covering issues almost no one else in the media is covering, such as election rigging. I sure wish he'd calm down and learn to practice some self control, though. Especially when a guest is trying to convey important information.

Debbie's picture

Absolutely agree with you Missy. There are so many times when

I'm hanging on the guest's words and right when they are about to finish their sentence Alex interrupts them and I never get to hear the completed thought. It's unnecessary to do that, at least let them finish their sentence! Otherwise, also agree he deserves a lot of credit for covering issues no one else will,


He seems like an anxious guy

Got a neighbor like that. Very easily excitable, and doesn't let people get a word in edgewise. It's not done on purpose, it's just a personality flaw (a particularly glaring one for a radio talk show host to have...).

OTOH, he sometimes likes to take what someone said before they finish and try steering the conversation to suit his own POV.

Just my .02 FRNs.

A signature used to be here!

Debbie's picture

Lew Rockwell has very interesting viewpoints, but he is an

anarchist. I heard Ron Paul say in a recent interview "I am not an anarchist." He has also said that there are ways we could refine the Constitution and certain things we could improve on, but he has never said to scrap it altogether. He has said we must elect only people who understand and will obey it, and I think that's primarily why it has "failed", because we did not do that.


Yet Ron Paul recommends

Yet Ron Paul recommends lewrockwell.com in his books. Anarcho-Capitalism is the epitome of Liberty.

Ron Paul also had a framed picture of Murray Rothbard, Mr. Libertarian, on his wall in his Congressional office. And he was probably one of the biggest champions of anarcho-capitalism to exist.

All anarchy means is " without rulers". Is that so bad?

Debbie's picture

Yes he and Lew Rockwell are very good friends and admire

each other, but that doesn't mean they agree on everything. Ron said in a recent interview, might have been with Laissez Faire, "I am not an anarchist".

He also does not agree 100% with Rothbard. Again in one of the recent interviews he said there was a point on which he disagreed with him.

Having a "ruler" is different than having a leader, like George Washington or Ron Paul. If people had someone who was fair and truly working for their best interest, they wouldn't mind it and would probably welcome it.


TwelveOhOne's picture

In whose interest is it synonymous with "chaos"?

Monarchy is "ruled by one" (mono- archy).

Anarchy is "ruled by none" (an- archy).

When people hear "anarchy" they think "chaos, burning buildings, death and destruction" and I believe it is in the best interests of rulers for the general populace to continue to make that association.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Monarchy and Anarchy and even Democracy (Rule by majority)

are temporary government systems that lead ultimately to either

Oligarchy "Rule by a few" (with a front man)
Republic "Rule by Law" (the Constitution)

Excellent viewing for a great description between them and what is the very safest and free-est for us all. Please watch!

The 1/2 hr (divided into three parts) documentary is excellent, from free markets to political systems-very concisely defined in understandable terms for all ages. I highly recommend passing it on.

Here's a link Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:

People like Lew Rockwell do a huge

service to the cause of Conservatism. Even before hearing about Ron Paul or being old enough to vote I was reading posts from Rockwell's blog because what he and his guest writers wrote about American history and current events resonated more with me and my Conservative upbringing than did the junk that fake modern "Conservatives" put out. Even though Rockwell has personally given up hope on politics, he has no doubt caused more Conservatives to recognize Neoconservatism for what it is and fight against it more than any other blogger out there.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

that was true in the past,

that was true in the past, but no longer applies. Now rockwell spends most of his time ripping the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. He rips on Rand Paul and praises the Confederacy and slavery. He praises the Articles of Confederation, but opposes the Bill of Rights. Naturally, the Articles of Confederation had no bill of rights. He opposes the Revolutionary war and supported the British in the War of 1812. He supports Murray Rothbard who naturally supported Bush for president.

After Rand Paul votes against Iran sanctions, he rips on Rand Paul again.

Rockwell is dangerous. Rubio is going to try to use him to destroy Rand Paul. Watch put.

Thomas Jefferson 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Rand Paul 2016, 2020.

I'm with Dixie(below)

I've followed Rockwell for years and have never heard him praise slavery, oppose the Bill of Rights, oppose the Revolutionary War or support the British in the War of 1812. Nor have I ever heard him rip Rand Paul. I've heard him point out his differences with Rand, but nothing I could interpret as "ripping". I have heard him rip Marco Rubio.

"Rockwell is dangerous." -That's what I like about Lew! ;)

"Rubio is going to try to use him..." -HaHa! Fat chance! :D

Lew did not support Bush. How did I learn that Rothbard voted for Bush? I learned it from Lew as Lew was pointing out that he had philosophical differences with Rothbard. Lew has never been shy in pointing out where he's different from others.

You, sir, are either deluded, posting while drinking, or a liar.

I just finished listening to ALL of Lew's podcast library from the last year.

- Not once does he praise slavery.

- Not once does he oppose the Revolutionary War.

And as to the rest, any statements that you claim he has made have been so inconsequential as to be almost completely benign...or they have simply never been made.

Nice gloves!

Are you by chance related to Aaron Burr? :D

Could you link to what you're talking about?

I guess I have read any of that yet.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

Rockwell is a real idiot.

Rockwell is a real idiot. The Constitution does not restrain people, it restrains people in the government. I am under no obligation to follow the Constitution. Also, as of 1912, the federal spending was only 1.75% of GDP. The Constitution worked better than any government in history for 125 years. But in 1913, the states changed the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Rand Paul 2016, 2020.

Lew Rockwell is so far from being an idiot ..

.. that the just the mere fact that you used that word to describe him?

Makes me seriously doubt your own intelligence. Honestly. Not trolling here. I mean that.

I might not agree to the letter with everything the man says and stands for. But "idiot" is the last word I would ever dream up as a descriptor.

Who's the Idiot?

It's probably counterproductive to bandy that term around.

However, the Constitution self-evidently does not restrain government. Have you looked out the window lately?

Yes. I've read it (dozens of times). I understand the "theory."

But, as GWB said, it's just a "goddamned piece of paper."

You don't think the guys who wrote it knew that?

The theory you should be thinking about is "game theory."

Do you think that the colonies who seceded from the Articles of Confederation and rammed the Constitution through didn't know what they were doing?

It is about "Powers," not about "restraints." Once you had a central government with the power to lay taxes (not intermediated by the States), it was inevitable that it would gather all power to itself. Follow the money was as good a maxim in 1789 as it is today.

You say it had a good run for 125 years? I say it didn't even have a good run for 25 years. The process started immediately, and grew exponentially, with the result we see around us today.

The anti-federalists foresaw very well what the Constitution would lead to. Their foresight was prescient. I believe that it is in this sense that Rockwell is referring to the fact that he does not consent. Nor should anyone, who doesn't have half their brain tied behind their back.

Sure, the Constitution would be great (or at least better) if the government actually followed it. But they don't. And they never have. And that is by design.

The Constitution restrained

The Constitution restrained government until 1913, at which time the states made major changes to it. These changes were against the principles of the Founders.

In 1912, federal spending was only 1.75% of GDP. That would be equivalent to a federal budget today of only $275 billion.

In 1912, most people had no contact whatsoever with the federal government.

Average federal spending from 1788 until 1912 was only 2%. By 1912, the federal government was actually getting smaller and smaller because the economy was so strong.

I should not have to remind you that the US had the greatest economic boom of all time during the 1800s when the small federal government did very little taxing or regulation, but protected property rights and order for businessmen to operate.

There is a reason all the inventions of the 1800s happened here and not somewhere else.

Thomas Jefferson 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Rand Paul 2016, 2020.

Then why was Lincoln allowed to destroy the Republic.


Free includes debt-free!

19th century was better

in many respects. This is obvious. I make many of the same points to my friends on the left.

But let us not forget that Alien and Seditions act and the Whiskey Tax were enacted virtually before the ink was dry on the Constitution (not to mention Hamilton's bond fraud, central bank, etc.) Politicians will be politicians.

Let us also not forget that Lincoln's unconstitutional and totally unnecessary war introduced conscription and fiat money at the federal level, and resulted in the largest loss of American life in our history (equivalent to 8 million people, relative to today's population). If there was ever any real "checks and balances" in our system, Lincoln's war put an end to that.

The fact that it took another 40 years or so for the cancer to metastasize is irrelevant. Once the potentiality exists, it will eventually be realized. If the history of governments proves nothing else, it proves that.

The changes implemented in the early 20th century are symptomatic rather than causal. They were the natural and inevitable result of what came before.

In other words, it is very difficult to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Patrick Henry warned

those in his day about giving the country a strong central government

"You will never be able to control the size of this government, if you give it that authority. It will become a gargantuan, uncontrollable thing that will feed upon itself."

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

The people in 1913 did not

The people in 1913 did not listen to Patrick Henry.

Thomas Jefferson 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Rand Paul 2016, 2020.

Neither did the people in 1789


But in 1789, Henry was

But in 1789, Henry was outvoted by Founding Fathers. In 1913, Henry was outvoted by progressives.

Thomas Jefferson 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Rand Paul 2016, 2020.


Which, if you think about it, might lead you to conclude that there is more continuity from (certain of) the founding fathers to the Progressives than you might otherwise think.

There's no continuity at all

There's no continuity at all because the federal budget in 1912 was only 1.75% of GDP, smaller than the government under the Articles of Confederation. The changes in 1913 were drastic.

Thomas Jefferson 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Rand Paul 2016, 2020.

You May Disagree

with Rockwell. But calling him an, "Idiot" makes you sound truly foolish. In as much as the Constitution is the brick and mortar which, ideally, the entire rule of law is based upon, then you do have to follow the Constitution.

I realize the point you are trying to make, but regardless of the state in which you live, the state legislature is empowered by your state constitution to create a multitude of legislation to which you must submit. If you murder someone, there are state created constitutional consequences.

"If you strike me down now

...then I shall become more powerful then you can possibly imagine"

That does really fit

thank you

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

More powerful

Definitely true. True power lies in influence, and changing the minds of the people, not in political changes!

"Truth is Treason in an Empire that lies" - Ron Paul

Educate the masses, and win in the end.