And it looks like I'm going to do it! if I can just put down my new IPad that allows me to read so many books, for free, and without a trip to the library in lousy weather for the last few days.  

On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I'm a real stickler for civil liberties. It's academic to talk about civil liberties if you don't talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well.

I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, `oh why are you saying that?' and I say, `well, that's not a political statement -- that's a scientific statement that I'm making!"

I know we're all interested in a better court system and amending the constitution to protect life. But sometimes I think that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker, and my bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion, if a state law says no abortion, it doesn't go to the supreme court to be ruled out of order.

Q: What will you do to restore legal protection to the unborn?

A: As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there's a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there's an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.

Chris Matthews: But you would've voted against that law.
Ron Paul: Pardon me?
Chris Matthews: You would've voted against that law. You wouldn't have voted for the '64 civil rights bill.
Ron Paul: Yes, but not in -- I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.
Chris Matthews: But you would have voted for the -- you know you -- oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the '64 civil rights bill.
Ron Paul: Because -- because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law.

I think he actually tried a civil action in Florida over the assassination....I think it was a defamation case.....I recall that he agreed to a weird deposition during trial by the other side on cassette tape or some such.