Isilion

By Nathan

“Ron Paul ought to be the Republican nominee for the sole reason that he speaks the truth. Ron Paul speaks the truth about the need to withdraw from the United Nations to save American sovereignty. He speaks the truth about returning to the states the power originally granted to them. He daringly suggested in Tuesday’s debate that we finally carry out Ronald Reagan’s dream to close down the U.S. Department of Education. He also noted that the Department of Homeland Security was an ill-conceived bureaucratic boondoggle from day one, which attempted to organize a messy bureaucracy with a thicker layer of the same.

“Nominating Ron Paul would mean nominating a candidate who will speak the truth, who will rely on the Constitution rather than focus groups, who will put American interests ahead of those of the so-called “world community.” He will defend the borders, send home the illegals, and respect the rule of law. Most importantly, I am convinced that President Ron Paul will not betray the trust of the public.

“While this Republican field has some impressive candidates such as Congressman Tancredo, Governor Tommy Thompson, Governor Huckabee, Congressman Hunter, and Governor Romney, none of them appear to be willing to truly address the growing threat of corporate and public welfare in America. None of them seem to understand Paul’s basic point that we must acknowledge that the role of the government is to defend liberty for Americans rather than serving as the world’s policeman.”

Read More…

How do we deal with a coup d’état by an elected government?

read more | digg story

Democratic voters need to decide, after eight years of Bush, if they can dedicate themselves mostly to stopping government from doing all the bad things they think Bush has done, from wars to Patriot Acts, or if it is more important to use government’s power to do all the good things they insist must be done.

read more | digg story

These are just bits…

The truth is, the U.S. Constitution no longer exists. It is long gone, and nobody is particularly concerned. That optimistic framework of self-governance and independence was rendered irrelevant by the Civil War which lasted from 1861 to 1865. The legitimate issue of slavery aside, when half the country invades, pillages, ransacks and subjugates the other half, that event can in no way be indicative of the rule of law, and was certainly not authorized by the Constitution. The Civil War marked the end of the American Republic of 1789. We live in the aftermath, a postscript; we are making it up as we go along.

America was sidetracked in 1898, and soon thereafter hijacked by its own unscrupulous, vainglorious politicians, just like England before it. At present, the capitol city of the new empire is carrying out a policy of disruption, war and manipulation in the Middle East to advance the same hidden agenda, just as London did after the Great War. This is the central reality of our time, a reality which is increasingly difficult to deny or ignore, because it has become so apparent and brazen. One fact should also be clear: this project did not start the day before yesterday with Dick Cheney, G.W. Bush and with their accomplices, those agents provocateurs known as “the neocons”. These latter have only perfected a pre-existing scheme and taken it to a new level…

Andrew P.Napolitano is the senior judicial analyst for FOX News. He is also the youngest life tenured Superior Court Judge in the history of the State of New Jersey, and has tried Criminal, Civil, Equity, and Family Superior Court Cases.

Bob Barr, represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2002 and is considered an expert on privacy matters.

Here is what is so scary about what these two men had to say. Right now, if you have a cell phone or a blackberry on you or near you, even if it is not on, but has a battery in it, the government can listen to your conversation. Both of these men said this is now legal.

Both men talked about how the government can now get information about you from your lawyer, your banker, your doctor, your accountant, almost anybody, and those people would be committing a crime, a felony, if they told you that the government requested that information.

read more | digg story

I wrote this on a thread in a NYTimes blog. Lest anyone think otherwise I wholeheartedly support Ron Paul for President in 2008. Expect to see more.

At any rate I believe the Abortion issue might set off alarms for many otherwise disaffected “liberal” Democrats who might jump on board the Dr. Paul train for his stance on individual liberty and non-interventionist foreign policy. The topic came up on this thread. I wrote:

The abortion issue is going to be an important one to both sides, but most people don’t realize that while Paul is personally pro-life he does not see a constitutional justification for a federal law banning or allowing it:

“Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal “right to abortion” exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

“Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.”

His reading of the Constitution says issues of criminal law are left to the states.

“Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it’s far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.”

These quotes are from http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html

If you are wondering about where Dr. Paul stands on most every issue, you should spend a bit of time here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

You won’t find a collection like that for Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney or McCain. They are more concerned about sniffing the prevailing winds than deriving positions based on principle.

— Posted by CK

I received the following response:

Thankyou , CK, for clarifying his thoughts on abortion.

I get it now, if it’s not covered in the Constitution, it’s not for the Federal Gov’t. to decide.

Oh happy day! A strict Constitutionalist! We could use a little of that here in America the beautiful.

Sign me- another Democrat voting for Ron Paul-

— Posted by Anne