……Here are some excerpts from John Stoessel’s interview with , Read slowly as these are pearls you are unlikely to hear from any other politician!

‘Dr. No’ & the Constitution

Paul says our government has strayed far from the ‘ vision of a limited government.

"I can’t quite find [where] in the Constitution [it says] the farm subsidies program is authorized by Article One, Section Eight it’s not there."

Paul talks a lot about the Constitution, more so than any other candidate.

"We’ve had a grand experiment in this country where we emphasize freedom. If you read the Constitution, the Constitution was designed to protect individual liberty, to restrain the government. But we have forgotten that."

Restraining the government the way our founders intended, he says, would eliminate many of the regulations and federal programs we have today.

"You can read the Constitution and understand it, but you cannot read and understand hardly any of the legislation [that is now] being passed."

He says that some people tell him that invoking a strict interpretation of the Constitution is "harkening back to the dark ages."

"Freedom is new, tyranny is old, it’s ancient," Paul retorts.

He thinks one reason the Internet generation has been especially interested in his campaign is because young people "know something about intrusion of personal liberties and personal choices & and [trust] that individuals can make better choices than government can make for us."

He credits his campaign’s vibrancy to those very old ideas straight from the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States.

"Truth is simple, it is not complex. Freedom is popular."

Read more on: Government’s Role & Bureaucracy, Drugs & Prostitution, Amnesty & Benefits for Illegal Immigrants and more…

Government’s Role

When Paul is asked to count off the major responsibilities of the federal government should have, he arrives at a surprisingly short list.

"Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. & Protect our environment through private property rights. & That’s it," Paul said.

Paul notes that when our country was founded, the role of the government was to protect the general welfare, enforce the rule of law in court, maintain property rights and allow for free markets and free trade "not to run our lives, and run everything in the economy."

It’s a habit of politicians to identify problems and try to "fix" them with new laws and bureaucracies.

While some of these reforms may be well-intended, says Paul, "good intentions won’t solve our problems," and more often they encroach on the personal liberties that have made our country great.

For example, it is a political consensus that the federal government should be involved in K-12 education and guarantee that no child is left behind, but Paul doesn’t believe that government should be in control of our kids’ education.

He would abolish the federal Department of Education.

He notes, "Since the 1950s, since the federal government’s gotten involved, the quality of education has gone down, the cost has gone up."

By contrast, Paul counters, if we introduce market forces into education, competition will create innovative schools that offer our kids a better education for less money.

Paul Targets Government Bureaucracy

The Department of Education isn’t the only government bureaucracy that Paul would like to see go. He’d also get rid of the Department of Energy.

He says it’s useless, and the free market would allocate energy resources far more effectively.

When the government introduces an energy policy, Paul argues, it’s all too often a means to offer up "government largesse" to businesses that lobby for support.

Paul would also eliminate the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency. He cites the disastrous handling of Hurricane Katrina and the avoidable tragedy of Sept. 11 as signposts of government ineptitude.

I asked him about other Cabinet departments.

The Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development? Get rid of them all, says Paul.

"We should think about what kind of a country we would have without these departments," he said. "I think we would have a better country, and all those problems that they’re supposed to solve, I think, would be lessened."

Getting rid of all this bureaucracy wouldn’t be Paul’s first act as president.

First, he says, he would "immediately take a pay cut & because I wouldn’t have so much to do."

Legalize Drugs and Prostitution?

In the interview, we discussed prostitution, drug use and gay marriage. Paul says these are not things that the federal government should try to control.

"I think the government’s role should not be involved in personal habits. When you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and you can’t be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms . . .whether it’s personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice," Paul asserted.

He believes the constitution says such issues should be left to the states to decide, and if a state chooses to legalize marijuana, cocaine, heroin and/or prostitution, so be it.

"I would get the government out of regulating all those substances," Paul said. "I think the government’s role should not be involved in personal habits. I believe those rules should protect children who are below the age of making good judgments. So, I have no problem with state laws that would protect children from the use of these drugs."

Paul also told me that marijuana, cocaine and heroin should be legal in states that choose to permit it; he feels the same way about prostitution.

"I would get the government out of regulating all those substances," Paul said. "I believe those rules should protect children who are below the age of making good judgments. So, I have no problem with state laws that would protect children from the use of these drugs."

And what about prostitution?

"If (people) do things that you don’t like and you might find morally repugnant, I, as an individual, I don’t make that judgment. So, I don’t believe government can legislate virtue," said Paul.

War on Drugs

Paul disapproves of the government’s war on drugs.

"It’s tragic," he told me in our hour long interview, ‘matter of fact, I think the war on drugs. . . has caused the price of drugs to go up."

Paul said we shouldn’t treat addicts as criminals.

"We treat ‘em as criminals rather than sick people, we have pushed a lot of people into prostitution. So prostitution is related to the mistakes we’ve made in the drug war."  

Opposing Amnesty, Denying Benefits

Paul, R-Texas, strongly opposes granting "amnesty" to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States today. So I asked him what he’d do with all those immigrants. Would he try to arrest all of them?

"I don’t think anybody could find ‘em. I don’t think anybody knows where they are," he said. "But if they come for welfare benefits, and you know they’re illegal, deny them the benefits."

That’s the crux of Paul’s approach &3151; deny the immigrants the welfare and social services that many of them now receive.

"Get rid of the subsidies," he said. "You subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it."

Paul wants to make the United States a far less attractive destination for illegal immigrants looking for free things.

"You promise ‘em amnesty, promise ‘em, that, no sweat, you can get medical care and free education, automatic citizenship, food stamps and Social Security you’re gonna get more of it," he said.

Rejecting the Birthright Law

Paul also objects to the so-called birthright law, which grants automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants in this country.

"I don’t like to reward people who sneak in for that purpose, and get on the welfare rolls," he said.

But, I asked, isn’t that a right spelled out in the U.S. Constitution?

The 14th Amendment says that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Paul thinks we’re getting the Constitution wrong.

"I think there’s confusion on interpreting the 14th Amendment," he said. "It says that if you’re under the jurisdiction of the United States, you have a right to citizenship if you’re born here. If you step over the border and you’re illegal, are you really under the jurisdiction? There’s a question on that, and I want to clarify it."

Paul’s opponents for the GOP nomination have accused each other of going easy on illegal immigration.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., accuses former Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York. of having presided over a "sanctuary city" when he was New York’s mayor, while Giuliani accuses Romney of employing illegal immigrants at his home.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., came under enormous criticism from many in his party when he co-sponsored an immigration reform bill with Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.

Paul has a tough stance on immigration, but that doesn’t mean he wants to seal off this country from the outside world. He said he’s not opposed to immigration at all, just illegal immigration, and that we should let in more immigrants legally.

"I think we could be much more generous with our immigration," he told me. But, he added, "we don’t need illegal immigration. We don’t need to reward people who get in front of the line."

Paul also told me he opposes building a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. He said he only voted for a bill that included a fence, because it also took on the amnesty issue.

"I voted for that bill to stop the amnesty, but I didn’t like the fence. I don’t think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive."