 Thank you. I'm just going to do it again. What do you think of jobs and opportunities for violence and racially committed to the best I am of my life tomorrow? I have it today at Rockham Hall Phenomena and it's response in the United States. Now, Rockham Hall Phenomena and it is in Phenomena and on presidential events in the history of our home ministry is an ideological touch zone. Tell me your response to the rise of such an unlikely icon. And I'll tell you why and where you are politically and culturally. It is often said by bewildered commentators, Christopher Conroy, I'm to mind, that Paul is a kind of board-shining test. His supporters project up to him all the ideas they will be given. This is what's supposedly explained on the field for wide variety of folks from blue-stated anti-war activists to redneck Second Amendment activists. However, the real secret of Paul's success is that he managed to project onto his audience a full-on travel vision of liberty, wrapped in a trenching critique of where he might go and how he can get out of it. The problem, in Paul's view, is that you're in the grip of a militaristic corporate state but a seized state power that is now working over the rest of us. The system contains Paul. Rest on an inherent contradiction, that he's made a constitutional system of limited governance and a world empire on which the study never sets. A republic or an empire, which shall it be? If your answer is the former, then Paul was your natural choice for president. And there are a lot of people from wildly diverse backgrounds and orientations made that choice this year, more than any other libertarian candidate in the history of our movement. And incredible, as it may seem, the response to this inside movement was not universally favorable. To get an understanding of why, however, it was necessary to go back inside and rebuke the history of organized libertarian movement in the United States, starting around 1978. At that time, Murray and Rothbard, the premier of libertarian theorists, and the ideological lone star of the movement, was affiliated with the K.O. Institute, which was then based in San Francisco. And this was the center of a vital and growing movement. This might be any logical center as made possible by the Lord Dess of Charles G. Koch, an heir to the Koch family fortune and Koch industries, being the largest private owned company in the West. The father, Frank C. Koch, had made his money in oil, engineering, and cattle. And they owned the state of Kansas, or right now. He passed on his fortune to his sons at least two of whom, Charles and David, shared his libertarian beliefs. Now, from the outside, looking in, all was well. Manus even indicated that articles held libertarianism as the next big thing. And profiles of the Institute and its bid-off groups were published in mainstream media, and glowed with admiration for their organization and enthusiasm, if not praised for their ideas. In the mid-1970s, when Charles Koch contacted Rothbard about what he'd been doing to advance the movement's goals, the late great literary theorist wrote a long memo that projected the creation of a mighty apparatus of libertarian country organizing in virtually every arena of American political and international life. Koch had the money, and Rothbard had the vision. At the core of it all was Rothbard's concession of the Cato Institute, which, by the way, was a name he came up with. As a think tank, devoted to the development, spread, and popularization of offering school economics, free market solutions to social problems at the home front, and a devotion to the preservation and expansion of civil liberties, as well as a consistent opposition in West imperialism. This last theme was particularly important as far as Rothbard was concerned. It was the lynch hand of his political stance as basically an old rightist, but it's a survivor of his time where the right side of the political spectrum in the US was anti-conventionist, and it was the left that was calling for the jailing of anti-war protesters for its addition. Rothbard saw the war as the progenitor of the collective revolution in America. An opposition to America's foreign policy of local intervention was for Rothbard, necessarily the main focus of libertarians in the 20th century, the era of two world wars and dozens of Western art conflicts, all of which led to the rise of an equal to a welfare and warfare state. One of Rothbard's many major contributions to the growth and development of the organized libertarian movement in America was a charity made by conventionist tradition of the 1930s and 1940s in contemporary women's scene, waning the old banner of the American First Committee and waning intellectual groundwork for the emergence of the long-called phenomenon more than a decade after the death. Now, growing up alongside the hope of a fatal institute like mushrooms and the shade of a giant tree, a whole network of special interest groups and the redockals sprouted. It was a student group, a movement magazine, libertarian reviewer, a weekly outreach to liberals, magazine, whole inquiry. These satellite organizations were all housed across the street from the last steel tower of the Kinderland Institute in an understanding warehouse. Now, split between Rothbard and the institute, he had inspired and essentially found it was occasioned by a presidential campaign in 1980 in which Rothbard was most unhappy with. In an incident that has become legendary in libertarian circles, the party's candidate Edward Clark, a loyal company lawyer, went on national television to explain to interviewer Ted Koppel that libertarianism was basically just quote, low-tax liberalism, federal. This outraged Rothbard for a number of very good reasons, not least of which was his strategic wrong-editness. The Kino Institute strategy was to target the elites, especially in the media, but also in the two major political parties and in government circles. Rothbard, on the other hand, took a diametrically opposite view. He envisioned a populist revolt against elites who profit from the maintenance and growth of state power. Libertarians, he believed, must make their appeal to ordinary people instead of aspiring to a position at court in the hope of withering advice in the King's Deer. It is necessary to appeal to the great masses of Americans so that libertarianism will become a living and vital political movement and not just intellectual poverty. Now, on the floor, under the tutelage of the Kino high command, refused to come out with the adoration of the income tax on the grounds that this constituted an unacceptable radicalism, Rothbard essentially broke the Kino, although the formal divorce had become a little bit later. Rothbard attacked car campaigns through articles that mocked the campaign's timidity and its rather pathetic appeal to the now-enters of low-tax, liberal, assertive class and age. Rothbard's first law followers in the Kino group made their appeal to influential supporters who must become listenably adherent of more controversial aspects of libertarian theory. This was symbolized by their move to Washington, where they built themselves another class in stable headquarters, only much bigger this time, and set up a shop as a resident libertarians in the headquarters of power. Rothbard, on the other hand, pursued a path of populism. He insisted that libertarian political action must be directed at the majority of the American people and not tailored to the cultural prejudices and ideological video-sacrifices of near-times-reading, white, white, and free liberals. Rothbard indicated with their separate ways, and so did the two big schools, one that they copyrighted Washington and the other copyrighted through it, especially the last wave of the conference being brought up in other pre-medical liberals, the Bolivarian action of libertarian effort to be funded by the American people. He adopted itself to his surroundings with community-like instincts, while Rothbard and his supporters organized in the countryside, so to speak, playing a roulette of insurgency and cultivating conservatives who were beginning to resent the incursion of the neo-conservatives, many of the natives from the left, and they had been takeover of the official conservative movement by the former leftists and right-wing social democrats. The Rothbard-Rocheto split has suffered a libertarian movement for this day, and that is certainly underscored by the response of the bell-way libertarians to the unprecedented success of the whole campaign. As the good doctor began to garner a fair share of media attention and his poll numbers began to rise, the bell-way crowd sneered in his too-old-fashioned, too-culturally conservative, not likely to make any headway. Well, he did make headway, and was threatening crowds of many thousands at rallies across the country, and the record campaign contributions began to campaign notice. The bell-way crowd, most notably the editors and writers at Reason Magazine, a co-funded entry price, began to back off and offered their reluctance, although still condescending, sport, but not for long. The cult machine was merely ready-up smokers for a smear campaign of unparalleled viciousness. Just as the whole campaign was beginning to break through the wall of silence and liberal media bias, the New York Public Magazine came out with a piece by one, Jamie Kerchick, a 25-year-old public. That includes the poll campaign and wrong self of appealing to a thinly-disguised racism. In particular, the story that I heard to experience was a series of wrong-called political newsletters written in the early 1990s that violated the canons of political crapness as much for the style, or actually a written asset of contents. The Reason Magazine crowd immediately took up the cry of racism and voted endless articles that would be endless to the instilling controversy as to that white libertarian crowd legally prepared for righteous scourge. Writing the online edition of Reason Magazine, David Weimel and Julian Sanchez, the latter of the Kato Institute, claimed that the whole episode was rooted in the strategy enunciated by the late Maria Rothbard and Lou Rockwell, founder and president of the Ludwig W. Bees Institute, designed to appeal those red, white-wing populists. And I quote, During the period when the most incendiary items appeared about the year 1989 to 1994, Rockwell, the prominent libertarian theorist for a Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist, paleo-conservatives, producing authority articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial poll newsletters recently unheard by the New Republic. The most detailed description of the strategy came as a Rothbard for the Rothbard-Rockwell puller type of white-wing populism strategy for the paleo-movement, lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought about to a libertarian view. Rothbard according to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an outreach to the rednecks, which would fashion a broad libertarian, paleo-conservative coalition by targeting the disaffected and working classists. And I quote, Of course, reason in its new incarnation as the official organ of the libertarian movement's aging hipsters and would-be-cool kids, vehemently opposites reaching out to middle and working class marathons, but as far to square the black leather jacket wearing Nick Gillespie and successor Matt Welch. White-wing populism, as far as the reaching ground is concerned, one might as well tell the appeal of white-wing socialism. Libertarianism as understood by the editors of Reason is all about legalizing methamphetamine, how the analysts hook us and giving major corporations tax grids. So reason keeps starving up of big corporate contributions. We decided we square Dr. Hall, a ten-term Republican congress in Texas, and it brought a white country doctor, was and is, anathema, to team reason. Now what would the smear fund do without paying to do? No smear campaign in America, please, is complete without granting an answer. No matter what, what the subject, the Iraq war, the Beerschindler and Wolk book, if you take the politically incorrect position according to the needle comes, then you're watching shoulder to shoulder with the former Plansman. And sure enough, the Beerschindler takes up where Reason leaves off yet claiming that the Paul newsletter had kind words for a book for Duke. Yeah, and if you go and read what the newsletter actually says about Duke, it is clear that the unknown author was merely saying, Duke's success is due to his opposition to affirmative action in the well-versed speech. Indeed, Kerch excites a passage without signing them full, in which Duke has hated the task for his lack of a quote consistent package of freedom. Yet the politically ignorant, Ratley Balgo, another Kato employee writes in Reason quote, I simply can't imagine seeing any piece of paper go out under my name that included sympathetic words for Duke. But the reason why the Paul's name did just that, and that's the nature of the quote. The isolation, which would be apparent if you actually cited what was written, is that these were not sympathetic words for Duke per se, or for his political ambitions, but for the issues, legitimate issues that he raised and exploited in his Louisiana campaign. After all, libertarians, such as Paul, reject affirmative action, racial suicides, and civil rights and discrimination ordinances, and all other forms of state-enforced, special treatment forms of online ordinance, precisely because they have owned racism in any form of collectivism. Now, I don't have time to go into all the accusations, there are many of them, in detail, but I just want to give you one example of the methodology of the smearable and how they operate. And in the curtain piece, they were like bullet points and they lifted these sentences out of context. And here's one sentence that I'm quoting, out of law form. Well, our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists, and they could be identified by the color of their skin. And quote, now taken out of context, that's a horrific statement, but when we go to the source of this quote, what we have and what we find is rather conventional, conservative analysis of the Rodney King riots of 1992. The rioters are condemned, the Koreans are valorized, and the subject of black entitlement in this relation to the welfare state are delineating with no uncertainties, not even sure that we have a place in any conservative medicine. The above cited phrase by the enemy being defined by quote, the color of their skin, and quote, is here placed in its original context under the regional paragraph. Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across the world. The professional blacks may account the elites, but good sense survives at the grassroots. Many more are going to have difficulty avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists, and they could be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, or may, entirely unroyal, important. So that is quite a different federal convention saying it is probably very unfair to believe them, but you would never doubt that, and you, if you're only sourcing the reason that I'm saying it. Now, in context, the authors clearly say that people will draw unfair conclusions, that racism will increase as a direct result of the Los Angeles Projects. How exactly is that racism? If anything, it's a warning that the sociological consequences of state policies and the failure of the elites to address them will lead to the rise of the native groups of this world if more responsible politicians don't face them at all. Another phrase that was looked at in context. Quote, only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, part of it. Plays in context, it reads quite different. Indeed, I'm allergic to whole things. Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion on blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support of the framework, individual liberty, at the end of welfare and third batch. I know many who follow this group personally and made a certain credit, not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people and more. How is that? The idea that people are not to be treated as representatives of racial groups is the insistence of the history, but any given point is out, this is just. Purchase also, and this is also tied by recent magazine, they took all the task for questioning the idea that far from being one of America's greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst. This is another of Paul's hate crimes. Yet the idea of an opposition to Lincoln idolatries and to racism is absurd as any serious person would immediately recognize. Is anyone really surprised that Paul doesn't idolize an American president who locked up his political opponents, repealed the rift of hideous orbs and closed down newspapers? Give me a break. Kerchin is shocked, shocked by the idea that a secession would be of legitimate means which he wants political objectives. He places, we quote, support for the Confederacy framework. But then one has to ask, how the Soviet Empire included so quickly and relatively bloodless, wasn't it because of individuals as well as the captive nations sustained from the union of Soviet socialist republics? Telling me, Kerchin, the new Republican punk, pays tribute to his libertarian collaborators of verging, quote, the people surrounding one of these institutes, including Paul, may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like either begging libertarians to stop Kerchin Institute or the bigger teams at Reason Magazine and, quote, they, of course, would never endorse the idea of secession, but, of course, they have endorsed the idea of secession. Vermont's secession is apparently okay, but hanging in the south of the Mason-Dixon line is not. Can't make this up, folks. As evident as a pulse alleged homophobia, rather than a benign word, Kerchin lines that the newsletter writers termed as a politically protected disease, quote, unquote, and yet that is the very same view held by the late Randy Schultz, a friend of mine, and a openly gay reporter from San Francisco, Chronicle, he inspected this book on the epidemic and put it in response to it and the band by Donald Schultz. Schultz, who died in the AIDS in the 1980s, in his book, describes that way how political correctness and fear of homophobia, the wave of the closing of San Francisco bathhouses that are incubating the epidemic and spreading the virus far and wide before the gay community began to wake up. Both the New Republic and Reason Magazine are perturbed by Paul's talk of, quote, an industrial banking and political elite, end quote. Any criticism of bankers and their friendly and shared condom is conspiracism and probably can't be submitted too. When the banks get bailed out, us plebeians have better not complain on the pain of facing purchase. Raph also reasons. Worse, by her chicken standards, Paul is, quote, promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills, end quote, a charge that seems slightly colorful, coming as it does during the most precipitous of times, and so that we're equine of a currency since the phrase not worth a continental was coinage. Now, C-Sailor, the writer for B-Gear and the American conservative wrote the novel. If a person carried out a theory, why would it be eager to mindlessly repeat smears about the most popular libertarian candidate in decades on the very day of the most crucial king-making primary in the United States, end quote. Now, this fear was published, the Acurgic article on the eve of the national primary, so. But it's no mystery, really. Paul is in many ways, in every way, the exact opposite of the Beltway, Cato Institute, Faye Lerturians. He's a populist, based on the power. He challenges the powers that be. They go on to go on. He has never gone along with the conventional wisdom as defined by the arbiters of political correctness, Latin, and Latin. And most of all, he's about to end the neo-conservatives, those former leftists, turn rightists, whom he constantly names as the main danger of peace and liberty, while the Beltway's tame libertarians are embedded then, often literally, as well as figuratively. In short, the Beltway faith lives are beg of the state and all its works, while contending themselves with the role of court jester and would-be reformers of the system. As long as they are challenging any two fundamentals for the continuation of the welfare welfare state, the pet libertines of neo-con-led Republican coalition are being urbane and cosmopolitan. The highest common, the Georgetown Party circuit and the staff. Once they begin walking about, as Paul insists on doing, they become fair-paying with smirking. How much time will it take? Another major reason for the atypity to Paul coming from these quarters is his uncompromising proposition to U.S. court policy. A good half of the reason crowd were pro-war, some of them digitalists, and a powerful minority that the Keto Institute rallied to the cause of liberating Iraq, or was least sympathetic to the idea of exporting free market liberalism at gunpoint once the war was a ban on peace. Reason itself took no position on the most important issue of the day, I'm told, because of the influence of big tributaries. The most shameful aspects of this episode is active role played by the left libertarians in the smirking of Ron Paul. The reason Keto Lynch mob is really threatened by the existence of a mass libertarian movement, because it's a movement over which they have no control. They no longer get to define libertarians into a general public, and more importantly, the media. Who needs them when we have a much more appealing and successful secession of the liberty? Besides, it's embarrassing for them, while they're making our rulers to allow us just a little more freedom, and timidly seek to trim the empire around its rocker hedges, Paul and the movement he spawned seek a much more radical application of the libertarian principles, of consistent anti-statism on the home front, and I call this mantle the empire before it dismantles the last messengers around the whole republic. Thank you.