Ron Paul

Ron Paul's New Hampshire Campaign Chairman Talks to Reason About Granite State Libertarians

|

DURHAM, NH – In 2008 Jim Forsythe briefly ran for US Congress as a Ron Paul Republican before deciding it was not for him and returned to the aerospace industry. His aversion to running for elected office did not last long. In 2010 he ran for a seat in the New Hampshire State Senate and won making him one of several Ron Paul Republicans in the New Hampshire legislature. Due to personal reasons Forsythe has said that he will not seek reelection to his senate seat in 2012.  

Forsythe, now Paul's New Hampshire Campaign Chairman, joined the Texas Republican on stage here for his town hall. He took time out for an on camera interview that touched on topics ranging from Paul's chances in New Hampshire to how and why the Granite State is a libertarian hotbed.

NEXT: Saturday Night All Right for Fightin' GOP Debate Open Thread & More

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It all makes sense if you have none.

  2. It’s not social engineering when we do it.

    1. You mean getting rid of social engineering is social engineering? Interesting.

      1. Obviously, there will need to be an authoritarian force to impose freedom on people. People cannot be trusted to come to this freedom on their own. It is analogous to a mama bird pushing the baby bird out of the nest.

      2. Social Engineering is the natural state of things. To force a move from the natural state of things is social engineering. Duh.

        1. Social engineering is not just a natural state of thing, it is much more. I believe it requires quite a lot study to achieve the stateof things.
          Florida granite countertops

      3. That’s what Tony believes, Mike…

    2. YOU CAN’T TAKE MA GOVERNMETN AWAY FRIOM ME!!11!!!

  3. Aren’t New Hampshirites eligible to vote in Vermont? It’s the same state after all.

    1. This must be some new england humor I don’t get. Please explain…

    2. Actually, this is true. However, if one votes R in one state, then one must vote D in the other. Just look at a map and you’ll understand.

  4. OT and no fucks given:

    Which HnRer is this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE

    The boot on head, the beard, and the awful puns are a giveaway its one of us.

    1. “a nation indentured”

      Heh.

    2. Somebody’s a Dr. Strangelove fan. He’s (briefly) in this video from the OWS vs. Romneybots post too, at about the 56 second mark.

  5. Good Lord were you interviewing him at a construction site?

  6. STOP WITH THE STOP.
    COP WITH THE SLOP.
    RANGERS, DANGERS, AND BANGERS.

    KILLER BEES, KILLER BEES, GET ON YOUR KNEES.
    STOP SMELLING THE CHEESE.
    KILLER BEES, KILLER BEES, GET ON YOUR FUCKING KNEES.

    DESPITE ALL ME LILY I’M STILL SUPERHUMAN SAMURAI.
    IN YOUR EYE, IN YOUR FACE, GET ON THE BACK OF MY DISTRACTING GRACE.

  7. Whoa. This pretty fuckin’ trippy.

  8. Who knew a train could derail before it started moving?

  9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQL4fSLE9J0
    Rick Santorum’s Paid Hot media Girl Supports Ron Paul, Not the Man Who Pays Her

    1. Nice. I actually like how frank she was about it. Refreshing.

  10. Check out the free eboon on ;
    the Libertarian Paradise’ Book 9 at http://andgulliverreturns.info

  11. Soviet studies? Way to hitch your troika to the wrong horses, Forsythe.

  12. lol. if THIS is what the DOJ considers “excessive”, well… as usual, if the metanarrative fits, don’t question it. when DOJ trumps up some rubbish charges on a “normal person”, the DOJ is automatically suspect. when they do it with SPD, they MUST be right…

    anyway, i know one of the two cops who tackled this guy. she’s a good cop.

    been talking about it. pretty amazing the criteria they use.

    btw, imo, two officers tackling a suspect is a VERY good idea (vs. one), because they are far more likely to be successful vs. one officer, and if an officer goes hands on to tackle the guy, and he overpowers the officer, THAT’s when we often get the escalation to serious force (e.g. baton and/or firearm) etc. iow, swarming with 2 vs. 1 is far more likely ot be successful, and thus accomplish the task with LESS force, less injury risk, and far less death risk…

    guy was charged with attempt murder. plead to assault 2 and burg.

    http://publicola.com/2011/12/2…..ive-force/

    note, i am (as is often the case) agnostic. iow, i QUESTION the DOJ’s report. i do not come to the conclusion it is correct or incorrect.

    anyway, THIS case is certainly a bizarre criterion for excessive.

    As Seattle police scramble to respond to the Department of Justice’s damning report on SPD?which says officers’ frequent use of excessive force has gone unchecked within the police department?one of the DOJ’s examples of alleged officer misconduct has riled police department officials.

    A source tells Publicola that DOJ officials used SPD’s heavy response to an ugly domestic violence call on New Year’s Eve last year as an example of excessive force. SPD officials have taken issue with the DOJ’s take on the incident, and are now questioning whether the DOJ grasps the dynamics of day-to-day police work.

    Immediately following the release of the DOJ’s report, SPD officials had said they “initially disagree with the [DOJ’s] conclusion” about the state of the department, and have been trying to pull together information and statistics about officers’ actions which might contradict the data culled by Justice Department investigators.
    While the DOJ report certainly contains details on many questionable uses of force, a particular domestic violence response criticized by the DOJ appears to be an example of why SPD is reluctant to accept DOJ’s findings as gospel.

    Sources tell PubliCola that the Justice Department has rebuffed SPD’s requests to take a closer look at the data on officers’ use of force used to compile its report, and police department officials have taken issue with some of the examples offered up by the DOJ of misconduct.

    The DOJ’s report says officers’ use of force was evaluated by investigators based on the “totality of the circumstances” which balances an officer’s actions against the seriousness of the crime they’re stopping.

    However, one example of excessive force cited by the DOJ during a tense meeting between DOJ and city and police officials have raised concerns among SPD about how the DOJ is defining excessive force. Although it isn’t detailed in the DOJ’s final report, the incident involved a horrific domestic violence case on New Year’s Eve 2010, when an angry boyfriend broke into his girlfriend’s apartment and attacked her.

    According to police and court records, on New Year’s Eve, police were called to a woman’s apartment after another tenant in the building heard her screaming for help.

    Police records say the woman had been in a fight with her boyfriend?who she had allowed to move into her apartment after he was released from jail for another incident, despite the fact she had filed a no-contact order against him?but he fled the apartment before officers arrived.

    The woman told police she was afraid her boyfriend would come back, so when officers left she barricaded the doors and windows of her ground floor unit, and jury-rigged an alarm system, wrapping Christmas bells around the front door handle. Later that evening, her boyfriend returned to the apartment, and forced his way inside, where he grabbed the woman and began choking her.

    “You bitch, you screwed up my life! I’m gonna go to prison for two years!,” he told her, according to court records.

    The woman struggled with her boyfriend, knocking over a Christmas tree in her living room, where he pinned her to a couch, where he ripped her shirt open, wrapped an electrical cord around her neck, and shoved a sofa pillow over her face, court records say.

    He then proceeded to unzip and remove his pants, according to court records.

    Officers arrived back at the apartment, and found the man standing over his girlfriend, who was in the fetal position on the couch.

    “I thought ‘this is it, this is how I’m gonna die’,” the woman later told officers. “I had flashes in my head that my kids were gonna come home and find me dead.”

    Police records don’t provide many details on what officers did next?police records only note they “immediately took [the man] into custody”?but the incident was apparently cited as an example of excessive force by police, according to a source.

    DOJ took issue with the fact that both the officers that responded to the domestic violence call gang-tackled the man, the source says. DOJ believed one officer tackling the man would have been sufficient.

    The DOJ’s report on SPD noted that pairs or groups of officers frequently misused force, saying “When multiple officers use force against one person, it becomes more difficult for officers to reasonably defend the use of force as necessary.”

    While the DOJ’s report certainly contains details on some other questionable uses of force by SPD officers?including the use of pepper spray, and knee and baton strikes on a man in a “stressed mental state,” who was yelling at traffic lights while holding a stuffed animal and an incident where officers pepper sprayed and punched a shoplifter?the domestic violence case appears to be an example of why SPD is reluctant to accept DOJ’s findings as gospel. Police believe the incident is an example of the split-second decisions officers are often faced with, rather than a clear example of excessive force.

    Justice Department officials have refused to disclosure further details about how they came to their findings, both to the city and to PubliCola, and the DOJ’s report simply says investigators looked at “randomized stratified, and statistically valid sample” of SPD use of force reports between January 1, 2009 and April 4, 2011 to come to the conclusion that officers excessively used force, which included frequent misuse of police batons and flashlights.

    The DOJ officials declined to comment.

    1. I read that in the voice of Vermin Supreme

    2. Has the SPD acknowledged any wrongdoing and/or willingness to reform? While it’s hard to complain if the department is chafing at incidents it thinks are unfairly judged, it’s not good if SPD is focusing on disputing this incident as a way of discounting the report as a whole and avoiding dealing with the department’s apparent problems.

      1. depdends on what you mean by “SPD”.

        the chief, chief diaz has been very vocal that he thinks there are institutional problems (iow NOT just isolated incidents) at his PD and says he is working to change them

        at least statistically speaking, i can say that SPD uses force in general (justified or not) significantly less often than an average agency, or a comparative agency (of its size)

        granted, seattle is ALSO a relatively low crime city, so ceteris paribus, one would expect fewer uses of force per capita vs. say oakland PD.

        in any agency, that’s something that needs to be considered. heck, within my own, it’s accepted that precincts within higher crime areas will have higher UOF per capita/call/officer… and that is generally true

        the union head has also acknowledged SPD has some problem officers, but has generally not conceded the problem to be systemic

  13. I HAVE NEVER HEARD SUCH NOISE ON A YOU TUBE VIDEO AS THIS ONE HAS!!!! IT’S HARD TO HEAR THE SPEAKER BECAUSE OF IT. IT SOUNDS AS IF THE BUILDING IS BEING DEMOLISHED.

  14. Ron Paul a 12 term congressman whom has NEVER ONCE voted to increase taxes, has had consistent policy positions from the start. The other candidates simply say what the voters want to hear. Ron Paul warned us about the housing bubble, the debt crisis, the collapse of the US dollar, the high employment and recessions; basically, the entire collapse of our economy. He is the only candidate who can get us out of our mess.

    Ron Paul is a patriot who has honorably served his country as a flight surgeon, defends both the constitution and civil liberties, and is for peace and prosperity. Paul has the wisdom, foresight, honesty and integrity to be president.

    Mitt Romney does not where he stands on any issue; Rick Perry does not know very much; John Huntsman has worked for Democrats for many years; Rick Santorum is an extremist; and Newt Gingrich is philosophically unanchored, an unstable element.

    America Needs Ron Paul.

  15. ted to come to this freedom on their http://www.ceinturesfr.com/cei…..-c-14.html own. It is analogous to a mama bird pushing the baby bird out of

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.