We rated Lawson on the Paul-O-Meter (in which we compared his policies and voting record to those of Ron Paul) and weren’t too surprised that he scored a 91 out of a possible 99 points (thus cementing his “Ron Paul Jr.” nickname).

Ron Paul himself has even campaigned for him and remarked on Lawson’s nickname by saying:

A lot of folks have begun calling B.J. Lawson the next Ron Paul. The comparison is very flattering. . . for me.

In the election BJ garnered 37% of the vote, which is quite a feat considering his district (4th) in North Carolina is strongly Democratic.

And according to the local press, BJ Lawson is planning to give it another shot.  He’ll be opposing Rep. David Price next fall.  Expect an announcement on his web site (www.lawsonforcongress.com) some time next week.

In the meantime, for more information, take a look at our interviews with BJ last year: Part 1 |Part 2 and then get ready for another money bomb.

Lawson has been called “Ron Paul Jr.” and has been enthusiastically endorsed by Ron Paul himself. Lawson faces an uphill battle in his largely Democratic district, but he is charismatic and is not your average Republican. We encourage all Liberty Maven readers to donate to his campaign. As you will see in this interview segment and the last one, B.J. Lawson is uncompromisingly dedicated to individual liberty and the U.S. Constitution.

Read the first part of Lawson’s interview here or read on for the second part.

LM: In recent political history there has been much debate about term limits for Congressmen yet not much has been done about it. What is your view on congressional term limits?

Lawson: I do not believe term limits are a panacea — they will limit the terms of good, principled representatives just as surely as they will limit corrupt and incompetent ones. Ultimately, voters need to enforce term limits.

If you haven’t heard of B.J. Lawson until now and you are a lover of liberty you are in for a treat. If we could cast a spell on every single person in the country to donate and help out with Lawson’s campaign we’d do it. In that vein please enjoy the first interview segment below and then head over to LawsonLibertyFund.com and pledge $5 or $300 to help out with his Ron Paul style money bomb on June 29th.

LM: What was your motivation for running for Congress? You are facing an incumbent Democrat David Price in an overly Democratic district; however back in 1994 a Republican unseated Price thanks to the “Contract With America” effort at that time. Does that previous defeat of Price give you hope for victory over him this time around?

Lawson: My motivation running for Congress is to advance a Constitutional federal government, and to question the “politics as usual” that is bankrupting our country and eviscerating our freedoms. Today’s political process is simply broken: we have legislators who don’t read bills before they vote, we have Congress delegating rule making to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists, we have legislators piling special favors into legislation that is deemed likely to pass, and few even question if proposed legislation is the Constitutional role of the federal government. These are symptoms of a political process that no longer represents the people.

While Price was defeated once with the 1994 Republican landslide, this year’s environment is much different. The Republican party is adrift, and lacks a clear platform after the past eight years. Furthermore, our district is a strongly Democratic. However, the vast majority of voters know we need change — and David Price, as a 22 year incumbent, personifies the status quo.

It’s not so much his 1994 defeat that gives me hope for victory, but more what he’s done since his 1996 re-entry into Congress: not much. Rep. Price is an Establishment candidate whose voting record reflects the party line, and shows little leadership or concern for the critical questions facing our nation: out of control inflation, unsustainable government spending and entitlements, declining civil liberties, and failed interventionism abroad.

The voters are demanding change, and this year they have a choice for principled leadership advocating a Constitutional federal government.

LM: Who is your favorite founding father and why?

Lawson: I try not to put anyone on a pedestal, as everyone has weaknesses and shortcomings. However, on the balance I consider Thomas Jefferson and Abigail Adams to be my favorite founding father and mother. Jefferson’s articulate expression of individual liberty in our Declaration of Independence provided the philosophical ideals for our nation that we are still struggling to achieve. Abigail Adams was a staunch opponent of slavery and advocate for women’s rights, and along with John Adams communicated the danger we faced by not rejecting slavery outright at our nation’s birth.

LM: Recently there’s been much debate about whether oil drilling should be permitted along America’s coastlines by the federal government. Your opponent has been critical of allowing such drilling. Where do you stand on this issue?

Lawson: As a nation, our states should be free to utilize our natural resources including oil and gas deposits off our coastlines. Federal restrictions on such drilling are not justified by our Constitution. At the same time, our federal government must not provide corporate welfare to companies who would harvest these resources. While the federal government should not prevent such drilling, it should not subsidize it either.

LM: You seem to echo Ron Paul on the issues. In fact he endorsed you in your primary race which you won quite convincingly. Are there any areas where you and Ron Paul disagree?

Lawson: I’ve not yet found any significant disagreements with Dr. Paul, but am sure with further conversation we’d find something. For example, based upon reading and discussions I am in agreement with Rep. Paul concerning the scope of the problems facing our country. However, we’ve not sat down and discussed potential solutions in enough depth to know if I’m in full agreement regarding how we might address these challenges.

LM: The recent fall from grace of Eliot Spitzer in New York has renewed the debate about so called “victim-less” crimes like prostitution. The other commonly labeled victim-less crime is drug possession. Ron Paul has called for an end to the drug war and releasing all non-violent drug offenders from prison. What are your thoughts on the war on drugs and victim-less crimes?

Lawson: The federal war on drugs is unconstitutional, and must be ended. Regulations concerning drug use and other so-called “victimless crimes” are not the domain of the federal government. The war on drugs is particularly objectionable, as it disproportionately targets the impoverished and disadvantaged and has given us the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.

As a student of medicine, I find it inconceivable that we criminalize certain substances instead of recognizing nonviolent drug addiction as a medical problem. Today, we can’t build prisons fast enough and have prisoners who are threats to society being released without serving their full terms. We should reserve our prisons for those who are a threat to others.

As a student of history, I am encouraged that we eventually repealed alcohol prohibition since it simply did not work. It’s time to recognize that today’s drug war is simply yesterday’s prohibition.

This ends the first interview segment. Check back soon for part two. While you are waiting head on over the Lawson money bomb site, pledge, and don’t forget to donate on June 29th.

Here is part two of the Lawson interview.