Is that the best you could do?

In the 200 years before Paul first won a seat in Congress Article V had not been acknowledged. Now you are out to condemn him for not raising a stink about it?

These have been fairly eventful times, did you ever think that there were bigger fish to fry? Maybe adding another variable to the Political process seemed counterproductive?

I have read various opinions on why Article V has been ignored, mainly due to its unpredictable nature.

What I gather is it's a bit of a power struggle, Congress is unwilling to share that power with the State for fear the State may destroy the Constitution. (as if the Fed isn't doing a good job of that all on it's own!)

I personally give Paul a pass on article V.

Earmarks are nothing new to Congress, though I have read the exact opposite of that which you have stated. Who am I to believe? Sources work wonders when attempting to make a point. Maybe name a particular Bill?

Anyhow, the fact remains that this is but a spoonful of dirt compared to the mountains that could be dug up on most other Presidential contenders.

Hardly enough to call the man's Credability and integrity into question.

I don't know about that Article V. thing, it may be he just was never asked about it. However his voters are very aware of the earmarking, he explained clearly and well. He stated that if his constitutants HAD to give money it's only right that they get some of it back.

Here is a quote from Ron Paul: "Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."

Having a Second Constitutional Convention sounds like a good idea but those pushing the idea are also talking about repealing the Second Amendment. I think this is where Ron Paul gets off the boat. The right to bear arms is fundamental, putting it up for grabs in a Constitutional Convention is a hard sell to those who love and cherish liberty over democracy.

Personally, I want to see us get rid of the Federal Reserve and the IRS before we have a Second Constitutional Convention. Ron Paul is the only man who can get us to that point. Therefore, I think of him as the Father of the Second American Revolution.

BTW--Ron Paul has the courage to challenge the money masters (people have been killed for less) so I don't think you have any reason to call him a coward.

/mark

Gee, I don't know. Have you asked him?

Very passionate and well written, I enjoyed reading it.

First off I'd like to ask what 15 minutes of fame you are talking about?

Secondly I am very curious about this statement, "How can a champion of the Constitution remain so silent on Congress' refusal to honor over 500 applications from all 50 states for a convention that more than satisfies the one and only requirement in Article V?" To be honest I was unaware that there were such applications that have not been recognized; though I really don't doubt you, I will have to research that to confirm obviously since you have provided no sources for this information. Perhaps you could include some links to information about that for other readers who might be similarly ignorant? Maybe you should also ask him about this issue personally since you seem to know something about it, I am confident that if you could demonstrate to him that the constitutional requirements for the conventions had been met that he would call for the rule of law to be obeyed and the conventions to be held. I wholeheartedly agree with you that this nation needs a constitutional convention and I would like to see Ron Paul talk about his views on the subject. I also certainly agree that if such proper applications have been put forth for a convention then we should have one immediately and Ron Paul should speak out on this subject.

The thing that I think is important to recognize though is that the constitution itself is not the problem so much as people (politicians, judges, policemen, military, jurymembers etc.) refusing to obey the law is (combined and exacerbated of course by the general ignorance of the meaning of the law, for example I would venture to guess that very few people reading this can tell me what a 'bill of attainder' is for example despite the fact that it is an extremely important term found in the federal constitution). Changing the constitution is all well and good but if our representatives continue to thumb their nose at it then it means nothing. Citizens of this country need to stand up and start enforcing the constitution, but first they have to read and understand it.

Also while I don't doubt that perhaps Ron Paul did propose the insertion of spending provisions for things in his district (which seems reasonable to me as he is a representative of his constituents) in bills he eventually voted against, I think you should provide a little more meat by citing examples rather than simply stating that he "has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending". Just what was this "pork spending" he "inserted"? You kind of make it sound as if he just went it and changed the bill by himself, surely it was a collaborative effort at the very least the house has to vote on proposed changes in bills is that not correct? You've piqued my curiosity and I really do want to look into this more, but considering the extreme level of corruption in the other candidates I'm sticking with Ron Paul even if I find that he did give some help to his district's constituents in a perhaps somewhat surreptitious manner.

While I support Ron Paul I do not agree with his stance on amending the constitution to remove birthright citizenship. I think there is a good reason why that was written into the constitution and I see no reason why it should be changed.

I also disagree with his immigration views, I think for the most part that people who come here illegally are probably helping our economy and I've seen studies that show they actually pay more in taxes than they get in services. I think we should make it easier to come here legally.

Despite these disagreements I am sticking with Ron Paul because I see no other candidates who are committed to upholding the constitution. By the way, if not Paul, who do you think should become the Republican nominee? My girlfriend said to me tonight after seeing some of the other candidates in a debate that they are "really scary", and to me Ron Paul is the only guy I see making any sense at all.

I mean seriously, come on, give the guy some credit, who else have you seen on television saying that the federal reserve is unconstitutional?

This guy is doing a lot of good I don't see anyone else out there doing anything like he is and gaining the momentum he has (I just attended a straw poll in Lakewood, Washington where he has won now 3 months in a row now with steadily increasing margins).

I'm going to try to organize my precinct to support him and see what happens, I think it's better to do that than it is to do nothing.

Anyways keep up the good work...but don't be afraid to cite a few sources.

I liked the above responses better than the original article. The best response was:
"Gee, I don't know. Have you asked him?"
That might be a good place to start instead of condemning him for his unknown stance on one obscure issue.

"A chief example is that he has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending to make constituents in his district happy. Then he hides behind his votes against the spending bills containing his earmark spending items. But those earmarks remain in those spending bills passed by Congress. Tell me, is that really virtuous behavior?"

Having a spotless record in voting against ALL unconstitutional spending bills sounds pretty virtuous to me. The way I understand Dr. Paul's philosophy on this topic is that he has a responsibility to represent his district IF spending bills are bound to be passed in congress. So he inserts funding requests for his district, but due to his Constitutional beliefs, he then votes AGAINST any of the spending bills actually passing (as you point out)! How many other politicians can you find who have a near perfect record voting against unconstitutional spending bills? Dr. Paul is a man of incredible integrity and his voting record proves it.

There's nothing wrong with using and working within the legal limits of the system to effect change. When Ron Paul earmarks legislation, he is doing nothing wrong so long as earmarks are legal. The fact that he votes against those very bills speaks volumes. Maybe he is making a statement that earmarks are wrong by inserting them and then voting against him. To that I would have to congratulate and appluad Ron Paul. If junk legislation is going to pass that is unfair, you might as well stick something in there to make it more fair for the people you represent and vote against it. If it passes, then you have done something for those you represent. Go Ron Paul...way to work the system :-)

This is probably the most direct assault on the Framers intent imaginable. Can you imagine what would be left after such a Constitutional Convention? The elites would leave us a parliamentary system that would comport with their design of regional, hemispherical authority as a transcendent step to an authoritarian supranational order.

Other that Paul, there are no Jeffersons or Madisons who remain who still believe in the nation-state. I wonder if this author is an insider who understands very well what such a convention would accomplish? We should all remember the intrigue of the last time such a convention took place--supplanting the Articles of Confederation...

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.

Less Government.
More Liberty.

RonPaul2008.com

For those of you who care about facts; go to this link and you will see actual copies of Paul's countless earmark requests.

It is pure hypocrisy to get more federal funding for constituents and then expect public praise for voting against spending bills.

Note please that Paul has never made any argument against using the Article V convention. And yes I have attempted to directly get Paul to comment on this, but without success. If he really fears an Article V convention and IF he really is the champion of the Constitution, then he should publicly propose an amendment removing that option from the Constitution.

Joel:

Okay, I looked at some of them. Which funding earmarks are Unconstitutional. They all looked clean to me. There's nothing wrong with putting Constitutional spending earmarks on a bill you don't want to pass so that if it passes there is something worthwile on it.

Hypocrisy - How is he pretending to believe or practice what he does not by voting against these bills? He's merely using the system to get equal distribution of funds for his area of influence. Can you show where he actually votes for any of these bills? If so, then you might have a case for hypocrisy...If not, then you don't. Let me know if you get this research under your belt.

I think Joel put it perfectly. In my opinion Dr Paul is one of the few "politicians" who is NOT a hypocrite.

As I've pointed out before, the Article V argument is entirely meaningless.

Every time we've come close to having one passed by the state legislatures Congress has stepped in and addressed the issue with legislation of their own, so in fact the system does work exactly as provided for in the constitution.

Dave

On the earmark thing, it's already been explained by the campaign. He has his staff put the earmarks together for his constituents because his constituents are paying into the system, they should get their share back. He then votes against it, obviously he'd rather nobody have any earmarks. Imagine if all those against earmarks never provided any for their constituents and those that were for it got money for theirs. Would those who were getting the money care that others were opposed to it? They're getting money while those who oppose them are getting none...

As far as Article V, have two thirds of the states called for a convention for proposing amendments while Ron Paul was in office? If so, please site this instance, if not, then why not also call Ron Paul out on his silence on Congress's involvement in so many other misdeeds throughout its history?

Also, I'm sure you've written similar articles about the other candidates views on Article V of the Constitution. Can't wait to hear their responses.

There's is also a difference between inserting an earmark and inserting spending. Earmarking simply takes money already in the budget and specifies it for a certain use. With or without the earmark, the exact same amount of money will be spent. I don't really see the hypocrisy.
It's similar to how Paul does it with Medicare and Social Security benefits. Though he'd like to (eventually, after a transition period) abolish these programs, he also works tirelessly to make sure that his constituents get them. After all, they paid taxes that go to these programs, so they are entitled to those benefits.

Dunno, is it the same reason democrats ignore the 2nd, 9th, & 10th amendments?

The alternative to earmarks is to leave the allocation of the funds entirely to the bureaucrats. Congress should earmark every penny they spend.

Dr. Paul routinely passes all ear-mark requests from his constituents through -- and why not? He reports all his earmarks. Most importantly, he does not decide which earmarks to ask for based on who has bribed him. Ron Paul cannot be bought. Period.

The problem is the amount of spending, not who decides where bits and pieces of discretionary spending goes.

Okay, with issues aside. A few campaign ago; we preached "character and accountability". How come no discussion? Or is it to extreme. My opinion should be in top of the list...

So then, with current candidates in the running, could you then share with us your view, who do you think is most likely to possess these qualities? Say trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and good citizenship.
Am I too naive to inquire for these qualities in a politician?

Ron Paul is most likely one of our last hopes should we wish to restore our Republic. Keep on discrediting the only one likely to help us rediscover our optimal national identity. Let's keep our Empire going...

The underlying premise of your piece is that an article five convention would bring about good changes to the Constitution. When I look at the intensely fearful America electorate composed of many compulsive busybodies obsessed with the likes of Paris Hilton and woefully ignorant of civic responsibility, I do not see how your premise is valid. You may argue that it would be the state legislators that would have the most influence but you should remember that most of them aspire to be eventual federal office holders, because of the power and privilege that resides there now. Hopefully, the Ron Paul campaign and presidency will be a significant catalyst for a change in the political sophistication of the citizens in the direction of the founding fathers. After some time, then, the country might be ready for such a convention. Ron Paul is right not to bring it up now.

The premise of your article is flawed. As flawed a document as the constitution is, a constitutional convention would be worse than simply amending the document every once in a while.

I do not want to see another constitutional convention, ever. Every time a state has one, such as PA in 1968, we get more professional, career politicians and more complex, less freedom oriented documents. So, please feel free to push for your convention. But know that it will never happen and if Ron Paul supported such a disaster, I would no longer support him.

Talk about a counterproductive time waster. Sheesh. And to take him to task when you know darn well that no other candidate even knows what a constitutional convention is is just sheer nonsense.

A new Constitutional Convention would likely lead to the utter destruction of whatever protections and rights the American people still have left. The First Amendment - amended. The Second Amendment - amended. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments - amended or repealed. Endless tinkering with amendments on abortion, pornography, "hate" speech, and private property ownership. Magically-created new "rights" like a "living wage" and "free" health care. It would be a disaster, an abomination, the end of the United States as we know it.

And that is why Ron Paul has wisely chosen not to support such a convention. Remember: A new Constitutional Convention is an option provided by the Founding Fathers; it is not an obligation. And quite frankly, the only thing standing in the way of our country collapsing into complete and total federal tyranny is the Constitution, as is.

The last 3 comments should be enshrined for everyone who brings up this topic to read. They express beautifully in 3 different voices why an Article V convention would be such an incredibly awful idea.

I've got my issues with Ron Paul, but I think it's very much to his credit that he realizes that enforcing our existing constitution rigorously will solve problems while a new constitutional convention would make us incredibly vulnerable.

Dave

"actual copies of Paul's countless earmark requests."

Good research. But if the worst thing you can come up with against Dr. Paul is that he does what virtually EVERY SINGLE CONGRESSMAN HAS DONE FOR DECADES, then you don't have an issue with much, ah, traction.

Here's a hypothetical example that I've just come up with off the top of my head.

Let's say Congressman Doe gets elected with the promise to support a Constitutional Amendment mandating term limits for Congressmen. Let's say he supports a three-term maximum. But three terms pass, and he still hasn't gotten this proposed amendment approved. So, after winning three terms, he runs for re-election again. The media (and his opponent) will call him a "hypocrite" for this.

But is it really hypocritical as long as the Congressman still supports the amendment? After all, term limits have not been passed into law yet, so he's not breaking any rules. And since it would require a super-majority vote to pass the amendment, he would be doing supporters of the amendment no favors by removing a supporter like himself from Congress, to be replaced by someone with different views. But if he, and like-minded Congressmen, gain firm control over the Congress, they could then use their power to pass the amendment, which would then apply to ALL members of Congress.

In other words, you sometimes have to work in opposition to your principle in order to accomplish your principled goal.

Ron Paul would be doing himself (and the people in his district) no favors by refusing any and all pork projects. He would almost certainly be voted out of office if he didn't bring some pork home to his constituents, and he would be replaced by some pro-pork candidate. So, as long as he continues to bring the pork home, he gets re-elected. And as long as he remains in Congress, there is at least one solid anti-pork voice there. And he remains consistent on this issue by voting against the final pork-laden bills.

I understand this is a complicated situation. But he actually does the anti-pork movement justice through these actions. And at any rate, he's a hell of a lot more principled than most Congressmen.

RJ:

Spoken like a possible contemporary type member of Congress. That is the convoluted nonsense that keep us from cleaning up the mess in Washington. What is needed is perpetual fresh blood, fresh ideas and fresh people in Congress. No human being is so intellectually or philosophically superior that he should be chosen to manage a society indefinitely. Best alternative is the Six Years and Out idea.

Maybe this article V thing is a good idea... if Ron Paul does not get the Republican nod maybe he should make it clear he will use this movement he has built to push an article V convention ... >-) now what would they think about that?

As far as the ear marks go... I believe the rational is that the taxes should not be taken in the first place so the ear marks gets some of that tax money back from the feds...

Giving the choices we have,I would say Ron Paul is the lesser of the evils.

Ron Paul has some good ideas, just some that is...

absurd thought - God of the Universe says just blame America for all the ills of the world don't blame simple dictators

absurd thought - God of the Universe says ignore the threat of jihad
SCREAM that it's made up an excuse for blood for oil

I think Ron Paul has better ideas...

absurd thought - God of the Universe says America is never wrong for all the ills of the world praise those who start preemptive wars

absurd thought - God of the Universe asks why is jihad a threat?
SCREAM that war is a reason for not minding our own business

WOW! I was very impressed by how articulate and civilized all these responses have been. Bravo Ron Paul supporters-I'm proud to be one of you.

As far as Article V goes I will admit to ignorance on this issue. I have heard Dr. Paul address the earmark issue. If you don't "earmark" the spending, that is specify where it is to be spent, then the money is up for grabs so to speak. Dr. Paul earmarks for this reason-to keep it from just being spent anywhere.

IF, a Constitution Convention were EVER to be called; the echo of the opening gavel would still be resonating through the hall, as the VERY FIRST MOTION WOULD BE ONE TO SCUTTLE the present Document and adopt that DIABOLICAL TRAVESTY that has been in existence since the mid-1960's, when it was constructed by FDR's son and other CFR Elitist - just for such an opportunity!!! ... God FORBID such should EVER TAKE PLACE!!!

Should anyone choose to exercise the TRUE import of Article V, in re TODAY'S Dilemma; It would be to:

* RESCIND the pseudo-14th Amendment, with its constructive trust by operation of law "Democracy" - the ultra vires insertion of which was in DIRECT VIOLATION of ALL THREE Article V requisites' FOR de jure Amendments to that de jure, 1791 Constitution; and

* RESCIND the "14th's" concomitant, currently published, 1865, 13th Amendment - which PROHIBITS ONLY PRVATE "Slavery", while succinctly ESTABLISHING Federal government slavery, based upon ANY "criminal" conviction, including nefarious "crimes mala prohibita" (Legislated crimes), which as you read this, can be no more wicked than the "Terroristic" act of challenging the Federal Income Tax, or simple as offending ones' emotional senses anymore; and

* REPUBLISH THE NEVER RESCINDED, and STILL VALID[!!!], 1813,13th Amendment -succinctly PROHIBITING service IN ANY OFFICE of government in these united States of America, BY RECIPIENTS of "Honours" from any foreign State, at penalty of LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP - TO which EVERY BAR-CARD HOLDING ATTORNEY IN OFFICE IS IN SPECIFIC AND CLEAR VIOLATION (can you say: "Esquire"?)!!!

While "Ignorance [MAY be] Bliss"; IT IS CERTAINLY the Achilles' Heel OF We the People of these united States of America - the Republic!!! ...

May Our Triune Creator God have Mercy on Us in Our apostasy to His duly Declared supreme Sovereignty OVER this Nation (see: the 1776 Premable, in "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America")!!!

Woo wee there Hal, what are you on? You're sounding even more whacked out than Brother Hirschorn - and that's saying something. I almost could make some sense of a comprehensible point in one place - but then it slipped away. This looks like the kind of crazy man layman ideas of a legal argument that isn't any thing like one, but rather just crazy person speak with legal-sounding terminology thrown in. Hint: It takes more than throwing in a couple of Latin phrases to make a legitimate legal argument.

Note that Hirschorn's basic point is to insist that somehow it is hypocrisy that Congressman Paul does not support his particular desire for a new constitutional convention. This is Brother Hirschorn's hobby horse, not Ron Paul's. Ron Paul seems to very much like the constitution we now have, so why would you think that his principals would require him to move to throw it out the window?

Paul's goal is to decrease the size and influence of government, not simply to be as radical as possible at all times. Almost certainly, any all new constitution that today's hacks would come up with would be far more pro-government than what we already have. It would make no sense at all for anyone of a libertarian or small government persuasion to support such a thing.

From what I've seen Ron Paul only likes the select parts of the constitutiion he agrees with and uses the 9th amendment to blow off the rest.

I think you may be witnessing Ron Paul's efforts to keep the federal government in check, and misinterpreting them as a desire to "blow off" parts of the Constitution he so passionately defends.

The purpose of the 9th amendment is part of the Checks and Balances system, in the 9th amendment's case, to prevent the other two branches from usurping the Legislative Branch's job: writing laws that codify any rights that weren't mentioned in the Constitution (the framers knew there were some.) The 9th Amendment also prevents the Executive and Judicial Branches from REVOKING rights guaranteed by the Constitution and those rights written into law by the Legislative branch.

A proper use of the Ninth Amendment, and one Ron Paul would be correct in invoking, is to prevent judicial annulment of the Second Amendment.

From what I've seen Ron Paul only likes the select parts of the constitutiion he agrees with and uses the 9th amendment to blow off the rest.

You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who likes and agrees with every syllable of the Constitution, Lumpy, and that wasn't the framers' intent.

The two most prominent bits that a lot of people don't like and wish would go away (for ideological reasons) are the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Re-read some of the gun control and illegal immigration threads, if you have time. It can be quite fascinating to follow the logical gymnastics of people trying to explain why these Amendments don't mean what they clearly do mean.

Woo wee there Al, your response here looks like that of some of these D.A.'s I've sent to the showers these past several years, by simply demonstrating their gross ignorance of real Law, in pro per pretrial's - even found a couple-a-judges in the process, who thought that was real neat, and got a Letter of Retraxit (just some more of that Latin for effect) from one of the D.A.'s! Albeit:

I hesitate to call you an attorney, since if you were, you'd hardly be honest enough to publish, "I almost could make some sense of a comprehensible point in one place - but then it slipped away." - so perhaps the real problem here, lies more within answer to the question: "what are you on?" ... Hopefully, you may have recovered now and I'll attempt to hand-carry you through this:

Dr. Ron Paul is not only My Congressman, for his full 20-years in office; he's also the brother of My CPA, Wayne Paul, through whom I have an "arms-length" relationship with Ron, and in that context; I'll assure you, a Constitution Convention is the last thing the Dr. would care to see, and he DOES LIKE VERY MUCH the Constitution we now have - as do I - so I'm compelled to wonder about the source of your ire, despite My most vehemently NEGATIVE comment - "God FORBID such should EVER TAKE PLACE!!!" - on the holding of a convention!

But then, for some, this Statist mentality is difficult to overcome, so perhaps your aggravation lies with My suggested Congressionally proposed, amendment rescissions, for those reasons I feel I've fairly clearly stated there, and will simply refer you to some unrevised history for substantiation of their veracity.

How appropriate that Joel should be the author of a work with the word "delusional" in its title.

And once again, we are reminded of how correct the Bard was about lawyers; too bad we didn't take his advice back in the seventeenth century.

What a waste of time, discussing a "candidate" who is only polling in the single digits.

Clavos ... I Couldn't agree more with your "Bard" concurrence, but; one who chooses to base the merits of a Presidential candidate - or anything else, for that matter - upon a mathematical calculation that measures a mere MAXIMUM 0.00000056% of ANYTHING to determine its value - MOST PARTICULARLY, a Human soul's sufficient preparation to govern 300-million other Human souls - SPEAKS VOLUMES about the type mentality that in fact HAS IGNORED that advice FOR CENTURIES!!!

Actually, Hal, I wasn't referring to (much less "basing") the "merits" of any candidate on their standing in the polls, merely pointing out the futility of wasting a lot of time discussing one who appears not to have much of a chance of being elected.

For all I know, he (not his mythical "soul") may well be the most meritorious candidate in the race, but if people don't vote for him, his "merits" will count for naught.

"For all [YOU] KNOW, he (not his mythical 'soul') may well be the most meritorious candidate in the race [BUT UNLESS ONE investigates and knows with CERTAINTY he ISN'T, then] ... if people don't vote for him, his 'merits' will count for naught."

You embrace "the Bard"; how'bout a little Mark Twain, on Benjamin Disraeli:

"There are three kinds of lies in life: Lies, damn lies, and statistics"!

After 72-years of experiencing all three, I'll assure you, the latter is hands-down, the MOST LETHAL!!!

What's your point (#45), Hal?

You better watch out for those highly dangerous and possibly even deadly statistics Clav ...

The New Years Eve falling rounds aren't enough???

Now I gotta watch out for incoming statistics too???

... You've just made My point, with your question here. And STM's lame attempt at sarcasm, well may come back to haunt you both!!!

Enjoy your bliss!!! ... There's only a few more months left in the "Ignorance" season.

Thanks, Hal!

Happy New Year!

And remember:

"Yet ah! why should they know their fate,
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies?
Thought would destroy their Paradise.
Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise..."

Not the Bard this time, but Gray.

Just to help out your own ignorance a bit: I don't care about Paul's standings in the polls (though I'm glad they're low); it's some of his ideas I don't like.

Enough of them that I won't vote for him.

Your egocentricity and hubris lead you down the path of thinking everyone must agree with you, for are you not "right?"

Perhaps not...I think not.

FINALLY!!! ... comments expressing salient basis in opinion - which I will, and for 30-months of mid-60's, S.E. Asian helicopter combat investment, I did, defend, and for "help[ing] out [My] own ignorance a bit:" I'll say, THANKS!!! ... As for My "egocentricity and hubris lead[ing] ... down the path of thinking everyone must agree with [Me], for [am I] not 'right?'"

Twenty-eight years, driving helicopters around the skies of seven-Nations, on five-Continents, while living in their local economies and in service to geopolitical entities - foreign & domestic - whose governance interests I can promise you, ARE NOT necessarily those YOU or I shall find palatable when their New World Order implementations are finished, DOES tend to give a person a "leg-up" to a better "view" of what's going on in this Disney-World-Outside-the-Orlando-Gates, we've been impressed into, in that interest - which I can again promise you; Ron Paul is THE ONLY ONE sufficiently IMMERSED IN KNOWLEDGE OF, and COMMITMENT to curtailing IT in ANY MANNER AT ALL!!! ... But:

Does this make Me "right"? ... NOT necessarily; albeit, in the sense of "better informed" to assess the situation at hand, I'll claim a very substantial "edge" and humbly ask that you at least give that your consideration!!!

Happy New Year to you!!!

"ARE NOT necessarily those YOU or I shall find palatable when their New World Order implementations are finished"

Just exactly my point: you assume that I want what you want, while I can tell, from the fact that you seek to elect Ron Paul and I emphatically DO NOT want to see him elected, that we don't find the same things palatable.

Had it occurred to you that I might be a globalist, for example? From a fiscal, economic standpoint I AM.

I'm also an atheist, and for that reason would prefer not to have a religious president (I know, that cuts out most , if not all of the candidates), and I DO believe we should intervene around the world wherever we see a necessity to advance our own interests.

That pretty much puts your guy out of the running for me.

I tried to warn you we might be at cross purposes:

"Ron Paul is THE ONLY ONE sufficiently IMMERSED IN KNOWLEDGE OF, and COMMITMENT to curtailing IT in ANY MANNER AT ALL!!!"

Again, you assume too much:

Not sure I want to "curtail" it, Hal. Having been born and raised in a Third World country, and having worked all my life in international business, I see a lot of good in internationalism and globalism, particularly in trade, and particularly for the poorer nations... But:

I congratulate you on your experience flying rotary wing aircraft; a close friend flies a medevac craft for a local hospital and I've ridden with him a few times; it's not easy flying.

Have you voted in the BC forum's presidential poll? If not then click here

Voilà!!! ... We have at least a suggestion of dialog here - albeit, of an somewhat conjured up nature, I would HOPE, so I'll take your reality first and then deal with the "cross purposes":

I'll humbly accept your congratulation on the rotorcraft experience and wish your friend well in his/hers, as it is a worthy task -even "Fun", where the elements can create a most fascinating experience within success; and with your, "Again, you assume too much:" I stand GUILTY, as charged!!! ... BUT:

Here, My assumptions become more My "questions" of your concept[s] of reality, in capacity of your "life in international business" experience, where you "see a lot of good in internationalism and globalism, particularly in trade [vis-à-vis Dr. Paul's adamancy FOR same!] and particularly for the poorer nations" !? ...

My having seen this NWO Marxist mantra "at work" in its initial efforts in 1981 South Africa; its intermediate throws in 1973-76 El Peru; and unwittingly involved in this government's efforts in its final product in 1965-68 Viet Nam & Laos: I can hardly see the merits of this NWO "North American Union (NAU)" travesty concept- where the indigent labor force of Mexico is combined with the Marxist socialism of Canada, to occupy the already industrially STRIPPED- but THEN so lawfully DESTROYED- united States of America, CREATING THE LARGEST "Third World Nation" ON EARTH- AS SERVING IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION to even CONSIDER "AIDING" the likes of this Kenyan (see hyperlink), OR ANY OTHER SUCH tragedy extant!!!

Considering, what is this "Modern Day" E.U.-U.S.-U.N., NWO M.O. for handling Tribal "tiffs" Were I a "Kenyan" today -knowing what My ancestors, of 200+ years past, had experienced in these united States of America DURING that interim time: I think I'd be PRAYING for a "Slave Ship" at anchor offshore, to which I could at least swim - if necessary - and BEG to be taken aboard, as "Cargo"!!!

Unless, but certainly IF, your "life in international business" experience is part & parcel of this E.U.-U.S.-U.N., NWO M.O. - Atheism, or whatever form of religious regime may be your "Shining Light", notwithstanding; then your stated rationale for political activism in this Nation of My Birthright, is certainly tantamount to that of, "KILL the goose that laid the Golden EGG" out of revenge, at best; or given your citizenship IS lawfully naturalized, such is in the nature of abject treason, at worst, as ANY FINALIZATION of this "North American Union (NAU)" travesty concept shall do terminal violence to both Our Declaration of Independence AND the U.S. Constitution - a treasonable offense - be it by bullet, or BASTARDIZED electronic Ballot!!! ... It was TO this form of development which I referred as being "unpalatable" and will hope that you may concur, as such.

As a businessman, I'm (and have been) very much in favor of NAFTA and CAFTA, as well as any treaty that will promote international trade.

In regard to NAU: I can't say much, as I've never seen anything authoritative about it; everything I have seen has obviously sprung from the fevered imaginations of conspiracy theorists, and made up out of whole cloth.

I am not a naturalized us citizen; I was born in Mexico of american parents and consequently enjoy dual citizenship. If my support of international trade and the agreements designed to facilitate it makes me treasonous in your view,there's not much I can do about that, nor do I feel a need to.

Hal,

As for your mythical "North American Union:" if you honestly believe that such an association as is described by Corsi and others could actually be created without the participation of the american citizenry, then, IMO you and I have no common ground on which to base a substantive and worthwhile discussion.

If in fact you are referring to the SPP proposal of March, 2005, then I would note that the scope of that agreement encompasses ONLY trade issues, and in no way jeopardizes the sovereignty of any of the three nations signatory to it.

Oh, and I don't believe Bush ordered 9/11, either.

Have a good day.

I just caught the very intelligent discussion between Clavos, Hal Richards, and others which included some asides referring to the idea of an
Article V convention (NOT a constitutional convention). I am compelled to point out that there is no danger of such a convention 'destroying' or replacing our existing Constitution. The delegates at such can only PROPOSE amendments, they cannot change anything
Any and all amendments proposed by the convention can only become law if they have been ratified by the legislatures of at least 38 states.

No cockamamie or weirdo or hairbrained amendments
are likely to get by that obstacle course.

I am sure that however much Ron Paul loves our existing Constitution, even he would favor an amendment for Congressional Term Limits, notwithstanding his excessively long tenure.